Replicating Al Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment shows that his “high school physics” could never work as advertised

This will be a top “sticky” post for a day or two. New stories will appear below this one.

Readers may recall my previous essay where I pointed out how Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 Video, used in his “24 hours of climate reality”, had some serious credibility issues with editing things to make it appear as if they had actually performed the experiment, when they clearly did not. It has taken me awhile to replicate the experiment. Delays were a combination of acquisition and shipping problems, combined with my availability since I had to do this on nights and weekends. I worked initially using the original techniques and equipment, and I’ve replicated the Climate 101 experiment in other ways using improved equipment. I’ve compiled several videos. My report follows.

First. as a refresher, here’s the Climate 101 video again:

I direct your attention to the 1 minute mark, lasting through 1:30, where the experiment is presented.

And here’s my critique of it: Video analysis and scene replication suggests that Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project fabricated their Climate 101 video “Simple Experiment”

The most egregious faked presentation in that video was the scene with the split screen thermometers, edited to appear as if the temperature in the jar of elevated CO2 level was rising faster than the jar without elevated CO2 level.

It turns out that the thermometers were never in the jar recording the temperature rise presented in the split screen and the entire presentation was nothing but stagecraft and editing.

This was proven beyond a doubt by the photoshop differencing technique used to compare each side of the split screen. With the exception of the moving thermometer fluid, both sides were identical.

difference process run at full resolution - click to enlarge

Exposing this lie to the viewers didn’t set well with some people, include the supposed “fairness” watchdogs over at Media Matters, who called the analysis a “waste of time”. Of course it’s only a “waste of time” when you prove their man Gore was faking the whole thing, otherwise they wouldn’t care. Personally I consider it a badge of honor for them to take notice because they usually reserve such vitriol for high profile news they don’t like, so apparently I have “arrived”.

The reason why I took so much time then to show this chicanery was Mr. Gore’s pronouncement in an interview the day the video aired.

His specific claim was:

“The deniers claim that it’s some kind of hoax and that the global scientific community is lying to people,” he said. “It’s not a hoax, it’s high school physics.” - Al Gore in an interview with MNN 9/14/2011

So easy a high school kid can do it. Right?

Bill Nye, in his narration at 0:48 in the video says:

You can replicate this effect yourself in a simple lab experiment, here’s how.

…and at 1:10 in the video Nye says:

Within minutes you will see the temperature of the bottle with the carbon dioxide in it rising faster and higher.

So, I decided to find out if that was true and if anyone could really replicate that claim, or if this was just more stagecraft chicanery. I was betting that nobody on Gore’s production team actually did this experiment, or if they did do it, it wasn’t successful, because otherwise, why would they have to fake the results in post production?

The split screen video at 1:17, a screencap of which is a few paragraphs above shows a temperature difference of 2°F. Since Mr. Gore provided no other data, I’ll use that as the standard to meet for a successful experiment.

The first task is to get all the exact same equipment. Again, since Mr. Gore doesn’t provide anything other than the video, finding all of that took some significant effort and time. There’s no bill of materials to work with so I had to rely on finding each item from the visuals. While I found the cookie jars and oral thermometers early on, finding the lamp fixtures, the heat lamps for them, the CO2 tank and the CO2 tank valve proved to be more elusive. Surprisingly, the valve turned out to be the hardest of all items to locate, taking about two weeks from the time I started searching to the time I had located it, ordered it and it arrived. The reason? It isn’t called a valve, but rather a “In-Line On/Off Air Adapter”. Finding the terminology was half the battle. Another surprise was finding that the heat lamps and fixtures were for lizards and terrariums and not some general purpose use. Fortunately the fixtures and lamps were sold together by the same company. While the fixtures supported up to 150 watts, Mr. Gore made no specification on bulb type or wattage, so I chose the middle of the road 100 watt bulbs from the 50, 100, and 150 watt choices available.

I believe that I have done due diligence (as much as possible given no instructions from Gore) and located all the original equipment to accurately replicate the experiment as it was presented. Here’s the bill of materials and links to suppliers needed to replicate Al Gore’s experiment as it is shown in the Climate 101 video:

====================================================

BILL OF MATERIALS

QTY 2 Anchor Hocking Cookie Jar with Lid

http://www.cooking.com/products/shprodde.asp?SKU=187543

QTY2 Geratherm Oral Thermometer Non-Mercury http://www.pocketnurse.com/Geratherm-Oral-Thermometer-Non-Mercury/productinfo/06-74-5826/

QTY 2 Globe Coin Bank
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=150661053386

QTY 2 Fluker`s Repta Clamp-Lamp with Ceramic Sockets for Terrariums (max 150 watts, 8 1/2 Inch Bulb) http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fluker-s-Repta-Clamp-Lamp-150-watts-8-1-2-Inch-Bulb-/200663082632

QTY2 Zoo Med Red Infrared Heat Lamp 100W
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200594870618

QTY1 Empire – Pure Energy – Aluminum Co2 Tank – 20 oz
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190563856367

QTY 1 RAP4 In-Line On/Off Air Adapter
http://www.rap4.com/store/paintball/rap4-in-line-on-off-air-adapter

QTY 1 flexible clear plastic hose, 48″ in length, from local Lowes hardware to fit RAP4 In-Line On/Off Air Adapter above.

====================================================

Additionally, since Mr. Gore never actually proved that CO2 had been released from the CO2 paintball tank into one of the jars, I ordered a portable CO2 meter for just that purpose:

It has a CO2 metering accuracy of: ± 50ppm ±5% reading value. While not laboratory grade, it works well enough to prove the existence of elevated CO2 concentrations in one of the jars. It uses a non-dispersive infrared diffusion sensor (NDIR) which is self calibrating, which seems perfect for the job.

carbon dioxide temperature humidity monitorData Sheet

===================================================

Once I got all of the equipment in, the job was to do some testing to make sure it all worked. I also wanted to be sure the two oral thermometers were calibrated such they read identically. For that, I prepared a water bath to conduct that experiment.

CAVEAT: For those that value form over substance, yes these are not slick professionally edited videos like Mr. Gore presented. They aren’t intended to be. They ARE intended to be a complete, accurate, and most importantly unedited record of the experimental work I performed. Bear in mind that while Mr. Gore has million$ to hire professional studios and editors, all I have is a consumer grade video camera, my office and my wits. If I were still working in broadcast television, you can bet I would have done this in the TV studio.

==============================================================

STEP 1 Calibrate the Oral Thermometers

Here’s my first video showing how I calibrated the oral thermometers, which is very important if you want to have an accurate experimental result.

Note that the two thermometers read 98.1°F at the conclusion of the test, as shown in this screencap from my video @ about 5:35:

STEP 2 Calibrate the Infrared Thermometer

Since I plan to make use of an electronic Infrared thermometer in these experiments, I decided to calibrate it against the water bath also. Some folks may see this as unnecessary, since it is pre-calibrated, but I decided to do it anyway. It makes for interesting viewing

==============================================================

STEP 3 Demonstrate how glass blocks IR using  the Infrared Thermometer

The way an actual greenhouse works is by trapping infrared radiation. Glass is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared light, as we see below.

Image from: greenhousesonline.com.au

Mr. Gore was attempting to demonstrate this effect in his setup, but there’s an obvious problem: he used infrared heat lamps rather than visible light lamps. Thus, it seems highly likely that the glass jars would block the incoming infrared, and convert it to heat. That being the case, the infrared radiative backscattering effect that makes up the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere couldn’t possibly be demonstrated here in the Climate 101 video.

By itself, that would be enough to declare the experiment invalid, but not only will I show the problem of the experimental setup being flawed, I’ll go to full on replication.

Using the warm water bath and the infrared thermometer, it becomes easy to demonstrate this effect.

Since Mr. Gore’s experiment used infrared heat lamps illuminating two glass jars, I decided to test that as well:

==============================================================

STEP 4 Replicating Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment exactly, using the same equipment – duration of 10 minutes

At 1:10 in the Climate 101 video narrator Bill Nye the science guy says:

Within minutes you will see the temperature of the bottle with the carbon dioxide in it rising faster and higher.

Since this is “simple high school physics” according to Mr. Gore, this should be a cinch to replicate. I took a “within minutes” from the narration to be just that, so I tried an experiment with 10 minutes of duration. I also explain the experimental setup and using the CO2 meter prove that CO2 is in fact injected into Jar “B”. My apologies for the rambling dialog, which wasn’t scripted, but explained as I went along. And, the camera work is one-handed while I’m speaking and setting up the experiment, so what it lacks in production quality it makes up in reality.

You’ll note that after 10 minutes, it appears there was no change in either thermometer. Also, remember these are ORAL thermometers, which hold the reading (so you can take it out of your mouth and hand it to mom and ask “can I stay home from school today”?). So for anyone concerned about the length of time after I turned off the lamps, don’t be. In order to reset the thermometers you have to shake them to force the liquid back down into the bulb.

Here’s the screencaps of the two thermometer readings from Jar A and B:

Clearly, 10 minutes isn’t enough time for the experiment to work. So let’s scratch off the idea from narration of “a few minutes” and go for a longer period:

RESULT: No change, no difference in temperature. Nothing near the 2°F rise shown in the video. Inconclusive.

==============================================================

STEP 5 Replicating Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment exactly, using the same equipment – duration of 30 minutes

Ok, identical setup as before, the only difference is time, the experiment runs 30 minutes long. I’ve added a digital timer you can watch as the experiment progresses.

And here are the screencaps from the video above of the results:

RESULT: slight rise and difference in temperature 97.4°F for Jar “A” Air, and 97.2°F for Jar “B” CO2. Nothing near the 2°F rise shown in the video.

==============================================================

STEP 6 Replicating Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment, using digital logging thermometer – duration of 30 minutes

In this experiment, I’m substituting the liquid in glass oral thermometers with some small self contained battery powered digital logging thermometers with LCD displays.

This model:

Details here

Specification Sheet / Manual
USB-2-LCD+ Temperature Datalogger

I used two identical units in the experiment replication:

And here are the results graphed by the application that comes with the datalogger. Red is Temperature, Blue is Humidity, Green is dewpoint

The graphs are automatically different vertical scales and thus can be a bit confusing, so I’ve take the raw data for each and graphed temperature only:

After watching my own video, I was concerned that maybe I was getting a bit of a direct line of the visible portion of the heat lamp into the sensor housing onto the thermistor, since they were turned on their side. So I ran the experiment again with the dataloggers mounted vertically in paper cups to ensure the thermistors were shielded from any direct radiation at any wavelength. See this video:

Both runs of the USB datalogger are graphed together below:

RESULTS:

Run 1 slight rise and difference in temperature 43.5°C for Jar “A” Air with Brief pulse to 44°C , and 43.0°C for Jar “B” CO2.

Run 2 had an ended with a 1°C difference, with plain air in Jar A being warmer than Jar “B with CO2.

Jar “A” Air temperature led Jar “B” CO2 during the entire experiment on both runs

The datalogger output files are available here:

JarA Air only run1.txt  JarB CO2 run1.txt

JarA Air only run2.txt JarB CO2 run2.txt

==============================================================

STEP 7 Replicating Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment exactly, using a high resolution NIST calibrated digital logging thermometer – duration of 30 minutes

In this experiment I use a high resolution (0.1F resolution) and NIST calibrated data logger with calibrated probes. Data was collected over my LAN to special software. This is the datalogger model:

Data sheet: Model E Series And the software used to log data is described here

Here’s the experiment:

I had to spend a lot of time waiting for the Jar “B” probe to come to parity with Jar “A” due to the cooling effect of the CO2 I introduced. As we all know, when a gas expands it cools, and that’s exactly what happens to CO2 released under pressure. You can see the effect early in the flat area of the graph below.

Here’s the end result screencap real-time graphing software used in the experiment, click the image to expand the graph full size.

RESULTS:

Peak value Jar A with air  was at 18:04 117.3°F

Peak value Jar B with CO2 was at 18:04 116.7°F

Once again, air led CO2 through the entire experiment.

Note that I allowed this experiment to go through a cool down after I turned off the Infrared heat lamps, which is the slope after the peak. Interestingly, while Jar “A” (probe1 in green) with Air, led Jar “B” (Probe 2 in red) with CO2, the positions reversed shortly after the lamps turned off.

The CO2 filled jar was now losing heat slower than the plain air jar, even though plain air Jar “A” had warmed slightly faster than the CO2 Jar “B”.

Here’s the datalogger output files for each probe:

Climate101-replication-Probe01-(JarA – Air).csv

Climate101-replication-Probe02-(JarB – CO2).csv

Climate101-replication-Probe03-(Ambient Air).csv

What could explain this reversal after the lamps were turned off? The answer is here at the Engineer’s Edge in the form of this table:

Heat Transfer Table of Content

This chart gives the thermal conductivity of gases as a function of temperature.

Unless otherwise noted, the values refer to a pressure of 100 kPa (1 bar) or to the saturation vapor pressure if that is less than 100 kPa.

The notation P = 0 indicates the low pressure limiting value is given. In general, the P = 0 and P = 100 kPa values differ by less than 1%.

Units are milliwatts per meter kelvin.

Note the values for Air and for CO2 that I highlighted in the 300K column. 300K is 80.3°F.

Air is a better conductor of heat than CO2.

==============================================================

So, here is what I think is going on with Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 experiment.

  1. As we know, the Climate101 video used infrared heat lamps
  2. The glass cookie jars chosen don’t allow the full measure of infrared from the lamps to enter the center of the jar and affect the gas. I showed this two different ways with the infrared camera in videos above.
  3. During the experiments, I showed the glass jars heating up using the infrared camera. Clearly they were absorbing the infrared energy from the lamps.
  4. The gases inside the jars, air and pure CO2 thus had to be heated by secondary heat emission from the glass as it was being heated. They were not absorbing infrared from the lamps, but rather heat from contact with the glass.
  5. Per the engineering table, air is a better conductor of heat than pure CO2, so it warms faster, and when the lamps are turned off, it cools faster.
  6. The difference value of 2°F shown in the Climate 101 video split screen was never met in any of the experiments I performed.
  7. The condition stated in the Climate 101 video of “Within minutes you will see the temperature of the bottle with the carbon dioxide in it rising faster and higher.” was not met in any of the experiments I performed. In fact it was exactly the opposite. Air consistently warmed faster than CO2.
  8. Thus, the experiment as designed by Mr. Gore does not show the greenhouse effect as we know it in our atmosphere, it does show how heat transfer works and differences in heat transfer rates with different substances, but nothing else.

Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 experiment is falsified, and could not work given the equipment he specified. If they actually tried to perform the experiment themselves, perhaps this is why they had to resort to stagecraft in the studio to fake the temperature rise on the split screen thermometers.

The experiment as presented by Al Gore and Bill Nye “the science guy” is a failure, and not representative of the greenhouse effect related to CO2 in our atmosphere. The video as presented, is not only faked in post production, the premise is also false and could never work with the equipment they demonstrated. Even with superior measurement equipment it doesn’t work, but more importantly, it couldn’t work as advertised.

The design failure was the glass cookie jar combined with infrared heat lamps.

Gore FAIL.

=============================================================

UPDATE: 4PM PST Some commenters are taking away far more than intended from this essay. Therefore I am repeating this caveat I posted in my first essay where I concentrated on the video editing and stagecraft issues:

I should make it clear that I’m not doubting that CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere, due to LWIR re-radiation, that is well established by science. What I am saying is that Mr. Gore’s Climate Reality Project did a poor job of demonstrating an experiment, so poor in fact that they had to fabricate portions of the presentation, and that the experiment itself (if they actually did it, we can’t tell) would show a completely different physical mechanism than what actually occurs in our atmosphere.

No broader take away (other than the experiment was faked and fails) was intended, expressed or implied – Anthony

About these ads

677 thoughts on “Replicating Al Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment shows that his “high school physics” could never work as advertised

  1. Very sweet, Anthony, an epic deconstruction. One of the reasons I write for this site is that you are not only writing about this stuff. You are doing original scientific experiments and analyses.

    My congratulations,

    w.

  2. So basically what you discovered is that had Gore and Nye performed this experiment, they would have “proven” CO2 is a cooling agent in the atmosphere. Of course we know CO2 does not do that unless it displaces Water Vapor or Methane in the atmosphere.

  3. …so are there no broadcast standard authorities to complain to over there???

    Brillian detective work – way to go – better than any dog with a bone

    Andy

  4. Hi Anthony,

    Great post again!

    I think I found a tiny mistake, in the conclusions you state in point 5 that air warms faster and cools slower, shouldn’t that be cools faster?

    Thanks,
    Doede

    REPLY:
    Yup, typo, fixed, thanks. – Anthony

  5. This is emblematic of AGW in a nutshell, a flawed theory based on shoddy “science”, presented as fact, but a fraud in reality.

  6. you should invite Gore to either tell you what you’re missing from the experiment, or to put up the raw footage fom his experiment.

  7. Anthony your dedication to the subject matter and thoroughness of your approach is a credit to yourself and an example to the world at large. This is real science done in the correct way.

  8. Falsification – one of my favourite words! Very well done Anthony. Thank God you are doing these things – most of the rest of the ‘scientific community seems dumbstruck by its devotion to the faith…

  9. This shows Nye is a fraud too.

    REPLY: Not necessarily, he may have been given a voice over script to read in a studio in Los Angeles and the audio sent out. The video was shot in Brooklyn. He may have assumed that due diligence was being done by Gore and his video producers. Maybe somebody can bring this to Nye’s attention and we can get the full story as to whether he had any hand in the experiment or simply served as a voice over agent – Anthony

  10. Well done, Anthony! Amazing. Your test in your “laboratory” (home)
    In spite of such clear scientific evidence, which I am sure anyone can easily repeat in a college- or university lab. environment, I continue to be amazed why people keep on believing the lie that CO2 causes warming of the planet.
    Clearly you have exposed Al Gore again.
    I have always said that the closed box experiment is not really valid, as,
    1) there is some warming caused by the CO2, by re-radiation of earth light, 14-16 um
    2) there is some cooling caused by the CO2, by re-radiation of sun light, @various wavelengths, between 0-5 um.
    3) there is some cooling caused by the CO2 by taking part in the photosynthesis (plants and trees need warmth to grow )
    4) there is some warming happening again due to increased vegetation (heat being trapped), which could be partly due to 1) human intervention, 2) increased CO2.

    The only way to determine what the net effect is of the increase in CO2 is looking at historical weather data as I have done and by recording the ratio’s of the 3 M’s….Maxima-Means-Minima: My current sample shows that the ratio of these is 9:3:1,

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

    meaning there is no”entrapment of heat due to an increase in GHG’s. It is the increase in maxima pushing up the average temps. + a small % of that extra being trapped by additional vegetation.
    Would also only take a few stats classes of students at university to copy my work (to check) and do a lot more.
    Surely, it is not us who is in denial, it is the mad world and our educational institutions who are in denial. Anthony, you can bring a horse to the water, but we cannot make him drink.

    Strongly recommended: a new book exposing the dreadful IPCC and its perversion of science. The author, Donna Laframboise, compares the IPCC with a “Delinquent Teenager”, spoiled, indulged, never questioned, and so corrupted. It’s only 100 pages long but gives plenty of info’ as to what has gone wrong with the IPCC. She explains that although the politicians and big media fawn before it as the authoritative voice of science, it is actually just venal junkscience.

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/10/13/a-book-is-born/

  11. Good to see a proper experiment done.

    I saddens me that media manipulate everything so much and this help politicians push their view of the world.

    This should be a warning to us all as this is not just a leftwing thing it was done both in Germany and Russia in the 1930′s and 1940′s.

    We need to be on our guard as the world is again entering a economic climate like the 1930′s which may bring about the rise of demagogues both on the left and the right (from a UK point of view this looks like this is already happening in the US with both left and right which is very sad and worrying). You have a great country and you were so fortunate to have Franklin D Roosevelt in the 1930′s as he guided the ship through troubled waters and the rise of the US after the WWII to stand up to Soviet aggression is a testament to how great a president he was, as he laid the foundation (my family was directly effected by soviet expansion which kept us apart for 40 years and I never met my paternal grandparents as they died in a siberian concentration camp).

    Keep your eyes wide open and do not be manipulated by leftwing or rightwing propaganda we are the last of the literal generations, but our Achilles heel is propaganda be very aware of how easily you can be taken in, every time you see something you need to ask yourself does this agree with what I know to be a fact or does it appeal to something that i want/fear. If it is the want/fear beware you are being potentially manipulated (as I was in the early 2000′s about AGW then I did the calculations as shown in the experiment above and realised it was wrong, someone pushing their own agenda on me by propaganda preying on my desire not to damage the world around me). You have been warned :o

  12. There was no reason for Gore to verify it in the real world by actually doing the experiment. The science was already settled.

  13. What I would do, is get both jars going with air first, and then see if they are the same temp. Adjust the distance from the heat source to make sure they both get the same temp (in the jar). It doesn’t matter if they are different distances, it’s the temp that your measuring. Then add satanic gas to B without moving anything. If you did this then you have ruled out most of the experiemental error.

    If you didn’t, it doesn’t really matter. Knows all, Sees all. All hail the Goricle.

  14. Has anyone tried asking Bill Nye for information regarding how to exactly replicate the experiment? It seems like that would be a good first step. If it’s a valid experiment then it should be easily reproducible given clear instructions. Obviously it wasn’t reproducible at all here.

  15. I curse you Anthony, I was just heading off to bed and now 45 minutes later I might be able to do just that.

    Well done!!

    Gore was right a simple home experiment can prove him opps wrong? lol

    Wish I had an email to Bill Nye, he really needs to see this.

  16. Good work, Inspector Watts! Brilliant! Present this to the jury and you’ve got a conviction.

    I’m sure your results will be judged by a jury of your peers in the following comments.

    And remember, Gore made it all possible!

  17. Why don’t you send this to the “team”. They seem to be labouring under some misconceptions as well. Plus, it would do them good to see how real scientific experiments are done. I think they all probably skipped lab while in school.

  18. First, I say hats off to Anthony for doing and demonstrating to the usual trolls here what to expect from real lab work. For example: I am curious if Gore et al took the time to establish equality between the two jars (obvious answer: NO) Anthony: “I had to spend a lot of time waiting for the Jar “B” probe to come to parity with Jar “A” due to the cooling effect of the CO2 I introduced.”

    Secondly, in tooting my own horn, recall in the original post here, I suspected that in doing such an experiment there would be no difference in the temperature in the two jars.

    Thirdly, we all performed experiments in lab that were both qualitative and quantitative; none of which were as low-base as the Gorelatory example of his style of high school science.

    Finally, I find it interesting that you actually took the time to replicate the Gore blasphemy and commend you for, as so well put by Willis, in “deconstructing” such garbage. Gratitude abounds.

  19. Anthony,

    I agree that the CO2 bottle for the untrained is dangerous but if people use the baking soda / vinegar version of creating CO2 it will increase the humidity in the container which could skew the test. It is possible that the high humidity in the B jar will conduct heat better and change the results. If you have the time and the gear still laying around I would love to see that experiment as well.

  20. So while showing how this “experiment” was a complete farce, you brought up a question for me.

    If an increased concetration of CO₂ acts as an insulator by slowing the cooling of an air mixture, wouldn’t this slow nighttime cooling, which would typically lead to a higher low temp for the day? Thus leading to the thought process of a warmer low temperature for each day even with the same high temps could be a factor to how the average temp for a month/year could be officially going up.

    REPLY: No, remember the CO2 in the jar is saturation, not at 390ppm like our atmosphere, big difference. The heat tables are for saturation at sea level at 300 kelvin – Anthony

  21. Anthony

    Good work.

    I remember the experiment conducted to demonstrate the Steve Goddard/co2 claims a couple of years back.

    I wonder if there are any more simple 101 type experiments out there waiting to be done-they are a demonstration of observable sxience in action as well as a graphic deconstruction of high profile claims.

    tonyb

  22. The comments on Media Matters are now even more delicious, it is almost as though the delay in announcing the results of repeating the experiment was there to give them enough rope, and now it is time to reel them in. Anyone volunteer to go over there and break the news to them?

  23. Edit (typo); “In fcat it was exactly the opposite.”

    I wonder how the experiment would have gone if plexiglass(?) or suitable IR-transparent jars or containers were used.

    REPLY: Already fixed, refresh – A

  24. @Byz:
    October 19, 2011 at 12:03 am

    I’d be interested to know what you mean exactly by “literal” generations. (Perhaps because I’m part of it)

  25. Its good to see a valid scientific experiment done without massive laboratory facilities, and which certainly shows the flaws in the faked Gore demonstration.

    However who would ever take any notice of so-called science done by a evil denier over that performed by a Famous Nobel Prize winner. Phooi!

  26. Typo, Step 3:
    The way an actual greenhouse works is by tapping infrared radiation.
    Trapping?

    BTW, Great job.

    REPLY: Typo fixed thanks – A

  27. I dont know what to say Anthony, first you keep track of the blog, writings, science, temperature stations, and my oh my, you also perform practical tests in your home!!

    Now this is the spirit of a true scientist!

    And then youwrite:
    “if they did do it, it wasn’t successful, because otherwise, why would they have to fake the results in post production”
    Yes, spot on.

    This made my day, thankyou :-)

  28. I’m looking at the first 2 graphs of temp vs humidity vs dewpoint. Interesting observations w/ regards to dew point and relative humidity between A and B. I need to think about this for a while. The CO2 replaced some of the air / H2O at start. Why the bumps in humidity and dewpoint near end?

    What is the vertical lavindar colored line in A?

    You should seriously apply for a grant to replicate your work on a bigger scale using your technique. Perhaps a pair of 8x8x8 glass ‘houses’ set outside in a field and use natural sunlight. Vary CO2 levels and H2O contents. This could possibly result in some very scientific results to better understand the principles of atmospheric phenomenon.

    You should be the one to perform this as apparantly none of the so called ‘climate scientist’ view anything other than a cookie jar (pun intended).

    REPLY:
    Lid removal at the end and moving dataloggers to USB port caused the bumps, can’t stop it until you connect – Anthony

  29. Not only does Gore FAIL but Gore FUDGES, FABRICATES, LIES and DECEIVES.

    Much as he did in his Inconvenient Lies.

    Surely he has broken some law?

  30. Anthony, do you have any links with local schools? Could they be persuaded to undertake the experiments for themselves using your equipment (so no cost to the school). Mr Gore suggests that it is a simple enough experiment and I am sure it would be a valuable contribution to the children’s science (or should that be politics) curriculum.

    Now, if you could persuade your local TV or press to cover it too………..

  31. Anthony, I was blown away by your dedication and attention to detail in the experiment. I loved the thoroughness of your approach. It is a credit to yourself and an example to the world at large on how to conduct an experimental check of scientific statements. What a pleasure it is to see some real science done in the correct way at last. How delightful an outcome it was.

    Nicholas Tesdorf

  32. I give your series of recreated Gore Lies Climate 101 experiments an F – for falsified!

    Well done Anthony.

  33. Within minutes (well, apart from tracking down some pretty “non-standard” apparatus …), you have confirmed with careful experimentation what we suspected all along … and, in the spirit of Feynman, listed what you felt were weaknesses so that others can better understand. Good work, even in replicating a shoddy and faked “experiment”.

    Y’know, it occurs to me that, if only for the time she lets you spend on all this, Mrs. W. must be a strong contender for sainthood.

  34. Anthony,
    Your do great work. You are a hero of mine. Your attention to detail and dedication to checking on the experiment in the Al Gore video is an example of your exceptionalism. Thank you.
    You have suggested Mr Nye may have not have known he was fronting for a staged experiment. I wonder if Al Gore may also having been only presenting from a script written by others. I cannot see him going through the process of doing the experiment himself. Of course, ignorance is no excuse and would only further diminish his credibility.

  35. FDR was rather a crook. threatened the Supreme Court when he couldn’t get his way(tried to add 5 new justices iirc) and had a general disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law. Sound familiar?

    Btw i will soon be peddling my own “Climate 101″ series of videos. I am neither a meteorologist nor a climatologist but that doesn’t appear to matter anyway. I’m sure i will be taken quite seriously by the media and scientific community as long as i spout the party line. :)

  36. If he thinks it’s millions of degrees hotter just meteres below the planet’s crust, why would you trust him when he proclaims “It’s high school physics!”???

  37. Anthony

    Full marks for comprehensively demolishing Al Gore’s experiment.
    I suggest, however that the interpretation of the heating and cooling rates depends more on the relative thermal capacities of air and CO2 rather than their relative thermal conductivities.

  38. The BBC version of this experiment used two empty 2L plastic pop bottles, and used an ordinary 100W incandescent light as the heat source. Plastic of course behaves differently from glass, and using a source close to sunlight is better than IR heat lamps.

    I wonder why Al Gore’s team specifically chose to get these elements of the experiment wrong?

  39. Congrats. Anthony, proof, if proof were needed, that Gore is no scientist.

    This also shows that CO2 is not an IR reactive gas as alarmists claim and goes some way to disprove the GHG theory.

  40. This is just so sweet!

    Perhaps the problem is that Mr Gore really does think that it is just science 101. That is why he goes astray…. But then again, he KNEW the experiment was fabricated.

    I’m beginning to think that he is really just another charlatan showman desperately ‘scratching a living’ from the whole AGW thing ….. But then again, he MAKES SO MUCH out of it.

    Whatever, if you knowingly falisfy something but present it as genuine you are very close to fraud.

  41. Damn and double damn these hypocritical cheats.

    Excellent job Anthony. Do you think the results would have been different without the lids on the cookie jars?

  42. Oustanding work again Mr. Watts. As it is such a vital rubbishing once again of all Al Gore stands for, are you going to put a press release out on your findings to all the pro. AGW media such as the BBC, NYT. Washington Post etc. to see how they re-act?

  43. Anthony, what I Iike best about your experiment is that you put it out there for all to see, and in this forum openly invite questions about it? Mmmmm now who could learn from this?

  44. I think this can/should develop into a challenge. Can ANYONE demonstrate (with specific details) exactly how it IS possible to re-create the orginal claimed results (I mean the Al Gore demo results) and, if so, give exact data as per standard scientific rigor on how to replicate the results elsewhere (as per Anthony’s description of his setup).

    After all, in science it is the ability to demonstrate replication that is the core of scientific proof.

    So just how settled is this piece of high school science? Prove it!

  45. Caught with his hands in the cookie jar? Al Gore, shame on you! Stealing candy from babies again! (the silence is deafening)

  46. REPLY: Not necessarily, he [the science guy] may have been given a voice over script to read in a studio in Los Angeles and the audio sent out.
    JK But he put his name on it, so “he owns it”. He should immediately disclaim this fraud.
    Thanks
    JK

  47. Has this experment ever been done using either something that mimics natural sunlight? Or even using sunlight itself?

    Surely that would be the best way to test the “simple high school pysics”?

  48. Well falsified, Sir.

    At the moment, I’m wading through Popper’s ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery,’ so this is quite apt.

    You could have made it easier by getting Kenji to operate the camera, after all, he is a (concerned) scientist, and six hand equivalents are better than two.

  49. Absolutely brilliant work Anthony. If there were Nobel’s given for Science Blogs, and assuming they had more value than the Obama/Gore prizes, you would be getting one.

    I think Foster Grant Tamino should be try to replicate the Gore experiment now. And be meticulous as you were.

  50. Nice, very nice, Anthony. The “step beyond” with the data logger was really good. Thank you.

    Now that you are done with the cookie jars, I suggest you use them in another experiment. Fill one of the jars with chocolate chip cookies and the other with pecan shortbread cookies and see which jar empties the fastest. Repeat the experiment several times until you have enough data points for a valid statistical analysis. (There may be wagering here on the outcome!)

    You might want to skip the video so as not to influence the outcome of the experiment; Cookie-nabbers “Caught on Tape” and all that.

  51. Anthony, we see the results of your experiment using real science. Can you please repeat the experiment using settled science?

  52. I didn’t waste time looking at the Goreathon and I don’t know your US law, but if donations were solicited by the former, isn’t that fraud?

  53. @ Juraj V.

    No, real greenhouse works by preventing the escape of warm air up. Proved by Wood experiment and replicated by Nasif Nahle here.

    http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html

    Yes, as I and others have also brought up, this should be a major topic.

    Like Trenberth’s missing heat in the ocean which “back radiation” supposedly is being absorbed by the oceans, the hot spot in the lower/mid tropical troposphere as predicted by AGW “theory” by “trapping heat” is missing too. Observations trump theory every time, and I suggest despite being told it is about basic physics, in reality it is figuring out how the atmosphere behaves in the real world.

  54. I was a little confused by Gore’s original “experiment” as they shone IR light onto glass vessels, and it is well known that ordinary glas contains residual H2O, so how the IR gets into the glass in the first place is a good question.

    Very, very nice and utter demolition, Anthony!

  55. Peter Plail says:”Anthony, do you have any links with local schools? Could they be persuaded to undertake the experiments for themselves using your equipment (so no cost to the school). Mr Gore suggests that it is a simple enough experiment and I am sure it would be a valuable contribution to the children’s science (or should that be politics) curriculum.
    Now, if you could persuade your local TV or press to cover it too………..

    Not just Anthony. Please, everyone here who is able to contact their local school’s science/physics teacher, do so. It should be a very interesting and instructive exercise for the students. Obviously they would have to set up their own equipment not use Anthony’s, but that’s how it should be. (And this being a proper scientific experiment, the results might be different too …).

    It wouldn’t be the first time a valuable test was conducted by schoolchildren. I am aware of two at least -
    (1) Erasto B Mpemba, a Tanzanian schoolboy, had a scientific phenomenon named after him – the Mpemba effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect
    (2) Two NZ schoolgirls, Anna Devathasan and Jenny Suo, tested Ribena (a drink marketed as rich in vitamin C) and found that it contained almost no vitamin C. The makers of Ribena were subsequently fined NZ$227,500 ($163,700) for misleading advertising. http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/03/27/idUSWEL34145020070327

    And Australians will no doubt be aware of P J Nicholson, the schoolboy expert on wombats. http://www.abc.net.au/austory/archives/2002/05_AustoryArchives2002Idx_Monday25March2002.htm

    This CO2 test could give some great publicity for any school that takes it up.

  56. Brilliant work! If this experiment fails to show the expected warming it’s not surprising Gore had to resort to fraud. In the AGW world that seems to be standard practice. But it does suggest two obvious questions:
    1. The conventional wisdom is that a doubling of CO2 leads to approximately a one degree Celsius rise. Using this theory, what rise in temperature would be expected in this experiment?
    2. Are there any peer-reviewed laboratory experiments that confirm the theory? And, if so, how do they stand up to sceptical review?
    Wouldn’t it be funny if it turned out that CO2 does not in fact cause any warming?
    .
    As I think others mentioned, this demonstration really needs to include control experiments: one with air in both containers and one with CO2 in both containers.
    Chris

  57. How hard do you think it would be to keep a somewhat steady CO2 concentration in the jars using the general apparatus you used. My daughter was thinking of growing some seedlings simultaneously under several ranges of CO2 concentrations. Also, can anyone think of a way to scavenge the small amount of atmosheric co2 down to zero, for experimental control?

  58. Well done Anthony! I do hope some MSM journo takes this up.

    Ronaldo says:
    October 19, 2011 at 1:46 am
    Anthony

    Full marks for comprehensively demolishing Al Gore’s experiment.
    I suggest, however that the interpretation of the heating and cooling rates depends more on the relative thermal capacities of air and CO2 rather than their relative thermal conductivities.

    I was, still am, trying to understand the results relative to capacities – would the greater drop in humidity in the Air jar be enough to override CO2′s lower?

  59. Googling to see how widely the “high school physics” meme has been used, I came across this 2009 forum post by a chemical engineer who helped his son to run a variety of GHG experiments posted by NASA, PBS, etc. They were unable to replicate the stated results for any of them:

    http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-312054.html

    These call for soda bottles and plastic bags instead of glass containers, and the NASA version uses the sun as a heat source (without specifying how the sun’s shortwave radiation gets turned into the longwave that is supposedly being trapped by CO2), but otherwise they are similar to Gore’s setup. Do soda bottles also block infrared, or are there still more flaws in these high school experiments?

    According to Wikipedia, standard 2-liter soda bottles are made of polyethylene terephthalate, or PET. Searching for the IR absorption spectrum of polyetheylene terephthalate, I found this 1959 study by Liang and Krimm:

    http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/32476/1/0000561.pdf

    Their p. 556 has an IR absorption graph that shows several bands of very low transmission and quite a few of about 80% transmission, with the average being about 60%, so at the very least a workable experimental procedure would have to specify a heat source that emits IR in a relatively high transmission band. Even then, the remaining 20% absorption would introduce the contact warming effects Anthony found in the case of the glass containers, which work to obscure the heat-trapping effects that the experiment is trying to reveal. This may be why the chemical engineer, who insists that his lab technique is up to snuff, could not get any consistent results.

    Looks like maybe it is not just Al Gore that is misrepresenting the actual results of these high school experiments, but a whole raft of supposed educators. If so, it implicates our entire educational system. How many thousands of times have students tried and failed to replicate the stated experimental results without these failures ever managing to emerge as a challenge challenge to those results? The scandal here could really be huge.

  60. Wonderful! I admire your dedication.

    To those who mentioned the Mythbusters episode: Did they use IR-transparent containers? (Plexiglass?)

  61. The comments at MediaMatters are priceless ..
    Not one of them getting it, while all patying each other’s backs for being so much smarter than ‘the others’

  62. I’m missing just one thing in this article:
    How to do it right.
    Because we all now greenhouse effect is real. The fact that Gore’s video is fake does not change that.
    Of course you can’t use glass jars and infrared light. But I really wonder what would it take to do this experiment correctly using affordable tools.

  63. This thing is this: Gore need not worry about this debunking since this goes no place. Those of us willing to look at all the evidence have already seen how disingenuous Mr. Gore is, but what about the 7 billion people on the planet that will not see this post? This reminds me of the Newspaper Headline on page one above the fold: “Smith shoots Jones!” and the retraction two weeks later on page 17C that no one reads.

    I thank Mr. Watts for posting this and it is wonderful; but I get so discouraged when cAWG gets debunked over and over and over and over — and we still see so many think it is true.

  64. Anthony – You say “STEP 3 Demonstrate how glass blocks IR using the Infrared Thermometer
    The way an actual greenhouse works is by trapping infrared radiation. Glass is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared light, as we see below.”

    That’s false as the primary mechanism, and has been known to be false for over 100 years. You could replace all the panes with a material that is permeable to IR and the result is almost identical. The greenhouse works by stopping convection with the atmosphere. See my old 2008 post about this here:

    http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/greenhouse-nonsense

    Here I pointed out that

    “Such an idea was debunked a hundred years ago by R.W Wood in his Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse, published in the Philosophical Magazine (1909). Wood wrote

    ‘There appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap.’

    By experiment, Wood demonstrated that the temperatures in greenhouses are barely affected when glass is replaced by material transparent to visible light that is transparent to infrared radiation as well. He concludes

    ‘This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped.’

    Greenhouses do not work by reflecting, trapping or re-radiating infrared radiation but by preventing the escape of warm air.”

    Also, the post shows that schoolkids in England are expected to do this experiment. The relevant page on the Royal Society of Chemistry website is here:

    http://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/jesei/co2green/home.htm

    But they use plastic bottles and incandescent lights, and, most tellingly, one bottle filled with CO2, i.e. hundreds of thousands of ppm, not hundreds of ppm.

    As I point out in my post, even the Royal Society of Chemistry don’t understand how a greenhouse works.

  65. jamie says:
    Has this experment ever been done using either something that mimics natural sunlight? Or even using sunlight itself?

    henry@jamie
    mmmm….well, I think what actually mean, is earth light. It is the earth-shine that is causing the warming that is alleged by Gore and Hansen and them?

    I have commented on the various factors to be considered by increased CO2 here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/#comment-771336

    and concluded that a closed box experiment can never work….

    I don’t think it is possible – and I have thought about it – to do a valid experiment that takes everything into account. The best way I can think of, is to do the “weather test” (check historical temperatures) in your area as I suggested here

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

    using data from, say, here;

    http://www.tutiempo.net

    and check the ratio of increase of maxima, means and minima.

  66. Thank you Anthony for everything you do. I owe Climate Change one thing. It has introduced me to you and many other upholders of scientific truth and along the way I have learned quite a bit.

    Here in Australia, we have Labor PM Julia Gillard’s nineteen “Clean Energy” Bills passed in the Lower House ready to go to a compliant Greens Upper House by end of the year. Greg Combet – get this – Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency – what a contradiction in terms – bores us to death with his undertaker monotone repetitive drumming of “climate change is real”, “carbon pollution is caused by humans, “being on the right side of history”, “in the national interest”, “doing what’s right for the country”, “need to act now for our children and grandchildren”, etc etc. One has to force oneself to listen to the lies.

    Thank heaven, we have in Opposition, the Liberal/National Coalition, whose Leader, Tony Abbott, has sworn “a pledge in blood” to overturn the carbon tax package when he wins the next election – the polls say he’ll romp it in. However, Labor has written into the legislation that the Certificates are property rights and therefore any future government disbanding it will have to pay enormous compensation. What a spiteful thing to do to the Australian people who didn’t want the carbon tax in the first place.

  67. That’s a great demonstration of the power of real science – a few dollars worth of equipment and a bit of time can thoroughly and effectively expose the claims of promoters with big budgets.

  68. Hi Anthony, great experiment. In the words of Mythbusters……. BUSTED!

    Just a question, but how possible would it be to replicate the experiment simulating the real world better? For instance a heat lamp instead of an IR lamp and an object in the jar that radiates IR in comparison to Earth?

    Would be good to see the “real world simulation” as well as the Gore’s version.

  69. Frank Lansner October 19, 2011 at 12:57 am
    I dont know what to say Anthony, first you keep track of the blog, writings, science, temperature stations, and my oh my, you also perform practical tests in your home!!

    He didn’t do it in his home. He did it at his multimillion-dollar, fossil fuel industry-funded Institute of Denialist Science. :-)

  70. steveta_uk says:
    October 19, 2011 at 1:56 am
    The BBC version of this experiment used two empty 2L plastic pop bottles, and used an ordinary 100W incandescent light as the heat source. Plastic of course behaves differently from glass, and using a source close to sunlight is better than IR heat lamps.

    I wonder why Al Gore’s team specifically chose to get these elements of the experiment wrong?

    Someone should try replicating the BBC experiment too, to see if it works the way it was presented.

    Mac says:
    October 19, 2011 at 2:27 am
    ‘Nullius in verba’

    The quote of the week!

  71. Stunningly thorough work Anthony. My compliments.

    So, the long and short of this is “Gore and Nye lied”. Gore gave a perfect example of ‘climate science’ and its ‘predecisional’ experimentation. You followed the scientific method that calls for replication of results to either reinforce or falsify the claim.

  72. Alec Rawls says:
    October 19, 2011 at 3:16 am

    Looks like maybe it is not just Al Gore that is misrepresenting the actual results of these high school experiments, but a whole raft of supposed educators. If so, it implicates our entire educational system. How many thousands of times have students tried and failed to replicate the stated experimental results without these failures ever managing to emerge as a challenge challenge to those results? The scandal here could really be huge.

    Let’s hope… The AGWScience Fiction department continues to create ‘experiments’ and give ‘examples’ which have no basis in physical reality. This begins with the ‘energy budget’, claiming that Visible light heats land and oceans. How? It’s not physically possible. So many have bought into this, even scientists clever in their own fields, that it is presumed true because now ubiquitous, it became ubiquitous through the education system. The opened scent bottle in the classroom supposedly proving that CO2 mixes thoroughly in the atmosphere another one ripe for debunking. That’s how all these junk fictional science ‘facts’ are first promoted. As said above, they wouldn’t have to fake experiments if what they said was true.

    This experiment is a great start to debunking the methods used to promote their science fiction. How can Nye be contacted for comment?

  73. Ah! At last the application of some rigorous science. Congratulations on a thorough job. Both on the scientific test and the replication of the equipment.

    So “the science is settled” : Gore is a FRAUD.

  74. Your final figure is an almost perfect steady state, pre-steady state/post-steady state plot. The only problem is that the baseline at the beginning and end are not long enough.
    This is your system;
    You have a true equilibrium where temp in = temp out and the heat influx = heat efflux.
    You then switch on the light and introduce an increase in influx, this is a zero order rate (heat unit time is constant).
    The influx of heat increases temperature, and thus heat efflux. The pre-steady state can be used to give us the order of the efflux rate. As we know influx is fixed, the line-shape of the pre-steady state is full of information about the system.
    When you switch off the lamp, you have provided us with gold-dust. At steady state, influx = efflux. The moment you switch off the lamp the RATE of the temperature change tells us the efflux rate at steady state, moreover, the line-shape of the post-steady state gives us the order of the relationship between temperature and efflux.
    So here us what you have to do,
    1) Run the system for at least twice as long, the baseline at the beginning and end should be flat; baselines are very important.
    2) Make sure you get to a true steady state, you need the lamp on for at least twice as long as you have run the system in you figure.
    3) I need to have the post-steady state curve going to baseline.

    Do all those things, package it as a txt file, and I will give you a complete steady state analysis of your system.

    I would also ask you to do a few more things. Get some silica gel and heat it to about 150 degrees in you oven, let it cool and weigh out equal amounts into two small zip lock bags.
    In one air filled tank place the sealed bag in the bottom and in the other have the bad open. Wait about 2 hours, then run the experiment.

    You can buy little helium cylinders. Helium has a high heat conductivity and is less dangerous than H2. This should be a positive control for heat conductivity effects.

  75. “1. The conventional wisdom is that a doubling of CO2 leads to approximately a one degree Celsius rise. Using this theory, what rise in temperature would be expected in this experiment?
    2. Are there any peer-reviewed laboratory experiments that confirm the theory? And, if so, how do they stand up to sceptical review?
    Wouldn’t it be funny if it turned out that CO2 does not in fact cause any warming?
    .
    #####
    the problem with ANY set up of this nature is that it does not really test the theory. The C02 or GHG effect actually works like this. It has nothing to do with C02 “trapping” heat.

    SW radiation hits the earth and warms it. The earth gives off IR. That IR must return to space. If the atmosphere was transparent to IR the effective radiating altitude would be the surface. But the atmosphere is not transparent to IR. So the reradiates from a higher altitude, from a colder regime. That results in a surface that cools less rapidily than it would otherwise. As you add more GHGs the effective altitude at which the earth re radiates goes up and the earth emits from a colder regime. This effectively SLOWS THE RATE of cooling at the surface.

    any experiment which tries to measure this effect, must get the basics right. An input source of SW. A surface that absorbs SW and emits LW. A gas between the input source and the surface that is opaque to IR. at the top the gas must be open to a vacuum.. space. What you test is NOT that the gas gets Hotter. Thats not the theory. The theory is the gas retards the return of IR to SPACE. That results in a surface that cools less rapidily.. people stupidly call this “warming” So yes the surface in warmer with C02 than without it, but not because C02 retains heat. The Co2 raises the altitude at which earth re emits to space, That means earth re radiates from a higher colder regime and thus the surface cools less rapidily than it would otherwise. If the earth reradiated from the surface ( like the moon does) it would cool quickly when the sun wasnt on it.

    So any and all experiments using closed containers are wrong from the START. they are wrong because they do NOT test what the theory predicts.

    1. That the earth will reradiate from a higher altitude
    2. that the surface will consequently COOL LESS RAPIDLY.. or be “warmer” than it would be without a IR opaque atmosphere.

    you cant test that in a jar

  76. Presumably the experiment failed because Anthony is not a “climate scientist”. I’m sure that if a team of “climate scientists” had done the experiment, they would have reported that the jar with CO2 was warmer. I was about to type /sarc but then realised I wasn’t being sarcastic at all – I sincerely believe that is what they would have reported.

  77. Thanks a million, this is great! Now please summarize all this in a narrated video for school children.

  78. Anthony, for proper completeness, the experiment should be run twice. On the second run, the CO2 would be put into jar “A” and the air into jar “B”. Everything else – thermometers, heat lamps, etc. – must be left as-is.

    This would guarantee that there is no effect due to individual differences caused by the equipment setup used in the experiment. In particular, the distances of the lamps from each jar may not be identical (notice the slight tilt in lamp B) which could produce the observed differences in the data-logged graphs.

  79. Actually, this *does* remind me of high school physics — experiments often didn’t turn out as expected!

    How difficult would it be to do the experiment more accurately? That is, replace the infrared lamps with incandescent bulbs, or halogen bulbs. Show that the two bulbs dissipate the same amount of power — perhaps make a baseline run with no added CO2, to show that jars A & B heat up at the same rate. [If the bulbs aren't identical, one might need to make two runs, exchanging the position of bulbs or jars.] I’m a little stumped about how to mitigate the cooling effect of the decompressed CO2. One idea is to have a canister of compressed air, and introduce it to jar A — but the flow rates may well be different. Perhaps one needs to have a largish container in the path from CO2 canister to jar B, in which the CO2 can warm to ambient before being introduced to the jar. Or remove the hose from jar B after introducing higher levels of CO2, if the jars are reasonably airtight. As CO2 is heavier than air, the CO2 levels should remain elevated. Since you have a CO2 meter, you can determine if the levels stay high.

  80. Fantastic work Anthony! I’m impressed….and I’m hoping that Bill Nye and others are scratching their collective heads about this.

    This experiment is such an article of faith in the CAGW playbook – I’m somewhat surprised that no one has actually refuted it until now. I mean – if it were really so easily accomplished in a High School physics lab – one might wonder why haven’t activist high school physics teachers haven’t been driving this down our children’s throats with wild-eyed glee.

    We now know the REAL story. It can’t be done. Great post, sir!

  81. The Mythbusters experiment seems to have registered a repeatable greenhouse warming effect, but the details of their experiment are woefully lacking, at least in this video of the episode (which might be edited down):

    At about 3′x3′x2′, the containers they use are a big step up from jars and soda bottles. The ratio of surface area to volume falls as container size increases (square vs. cube), so the larger container reduces the size of the convection effects from container warming as compared to the heat trapping effects of the gas inside. The Mythbuster containers have wood frames that are stretched over with some kind of plastic sheeting, so depending on what they used, they could be relatively transparent to IR. But the video provides no details on the absorption spectrum of the plastic (which will vary with the thickness of the plastic), or on the spectrum of their light source. Neither do they say how much they upped the CO2 level.

    I hope that is because the video is edited, because they claim that they are “upping the greenhouse gases in minutely accurate increments.” If they actually filled the container with 100% CO2, the “minutely accurate increments” is misleading, and 100% CO2 makes the 1 degree C higher temperature finding much less dramatic than if they, say, doubled the atmospheric CO2 level. Did Mythbusters really fail to say how much they upped the CO2 level? The linked video does not seem to have been edited beyond the show’s own editing.

    In any case, their procedure does seem to have succeeded in getting the GHG heat-trapping mechanism to dominate convection effects, and their set-up is pretty simple (supposing that the fancy PPM monitoring devices are just for show and they are actually using near 100% CO2). So it isn’t TOO hard to get this kind of experiment to work. It’s just that the soda bottles they are telling kids to use (to say nothing of Gore’s glass jars) don’t seem to cut it.

  82. That’s a lot of work to prove something that Algore claims is false.
    Over the years I have carefully observed Algore and statistically plotted and matched his claims with reality. This decades long observation and data testing has led me to this develop a fairly good theory to explain Algore’s claims visa vie reality.

    The Goron Theory: Algore’s moving lips have a causal inverse relationship to reality.
    At this rate the Goron Theory will become a universal law. I haven’t heard back from the Nobel Prize people yet

    Well done as usual Anthony.

  83. Really well done Anthony.

    Just think of how many people actually believed the results of the previous demonstrations.

    That should put an END to all these same kind of experiments (and some people have some serious explaining to do).

    ————

    I would like to see more examples using the IR camera. Daytime; nightime; cloud-cover; clear-sky; different surfaces like grass concrete soil; inside a greenhouse; how far can the camera see (how far do the IR photons actually travel so that an image of warm object can be seen) etc.

    The IR camera can bring many of the abstract theories into REALITY (just like your great demonstration has).

  84. Great experiment, I like.
    I don’t doubt this experiment at all, but for the sake of the completeness of the experiment
    I think you should have tested both jars with air only, heat them and watch the temp
    and then test both jars with CO2 only, heat them and watch the temp
    to prove that the jars aren’t different, then you would test it as you did.

    Good job.

  85. DR says:
    October 19, 2011 at 3:00 am
    @ Juraj V.

    No, real greenhouse works by preventing the escape of warm air up. Proved by Wood experiment and replicated by Nasif Nahle here.

    http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html

    Yes, as I and others have also brought up, this should be a major topic.

    I agree with DR and Juraj V (Step 3). Prof. R W Wood proved this in 1909. Incidentally polytunnels use a modified polythene that absorbs infrared to lower temperatures and reduce scorching of the fruit and veg.

    http://www.clovis.co.uk/horticultural/polythene_films.htm

    Sorry for the nitpicking and congratulations on this excellent research.

  86. The Photoshop is irrefutable. Those two thermometers are only one thermometer with the fluid level changed by Photoshop manipulation. If it were the same thermometer and used one place and then used another, it would be virtually impossible to have the reflection off the glass of the thermometer match that exactly. It would requite that the thermometer be placed in exactly, and I mean to the sub mm position, and that the light source was not bumped in any way. Somebody “shopped” the fluid level. Crud, even I put some hair on a bald guy for someone using “shop” and the clone tool as a joke. I am hardly a graphics artist either. I promised somebody I know on facebook that I would put her in a picture with her arm around Abe Lincoln. That one is harder since the number of photos of Abe I can get at is limited. All this one would take is a real quick copy and paste. If anyone is interested, I will get the temperature up to 102 F and post the picture. It appears that they keyed on the centigrade side for alignment on the paste. Some of the Fahrenheit marks do not continue where you would expect them too. They are awol. Go down to pixel level in phtoslop and take a look.

  87. Anthony, it would be great if you could create a 2-3 minute highlight version and send it to Fox News. I’m sure they would be interested.

    I’d also like you thank you for demonstrating the “cooling effect” of CO2 that I have mentioned on this blog many times. Of course, the large amount of CO2 over emphasizes that effect, but it’s nice to see it in action. Since the jar itself does warm during the experiment there will be some IR focused on the CO2 in the jars in addition to the conduction. So, the GHE or what I called the “warming effect” of GHGs should also have been present to some degree.

    You indicated you think the increase was due to differences in conduction. I think it is a combination of the “cooling effect” and conduction. You need to determine the temperature of the glass container to determine how it was spread. If it was all conduction then the CO2 container would be warmer.

    It would be interesting to try your experiment with plastic jars and metal jars. Can we look forward to a sequel?

  88. A further experiment with multiple jars each with different levels of humidity would be of benefit

  89. A small nit, Anthony, but where you state this:

    :Note that the two thermometers read 98.1°F at the conclusion of the test, as shown in this screencap from my video @ about 5:35:”

    The thermometers are actually at or slightly above 98.6. Either a typo, or you didn’t notice the small “.6″ off to the right of the red “98″ on them. Immaterial, though, since you point was to show calibration, so the number doesn’t really matter so much.

  90. Can anyone who believes that CO2 does not absorb infra-red explain how Antony’s “portable CO2 meter” ( “It uses a non-dispersive infrared diffusion sensor (NDIR) which is self calibrating, which seems perfect for the job.”) was able to measure CO2 concentration?

  91. Interesting comment regarding the solicitation of money based on a fraudulent presentation (aka snake oil presentation). However, in the good ol’ US of A, snake oil sales are still allowed. We expect our general population to have brains enough to see through talking hats. And if some can’t, they deserve to spend their money and drink the snake oil.

    If the greens really want this CO2 business to get off the ground and make serious money, they need to get their little selves together and start selling stuff related to CO2 reduction. Buy infomercial time and have at it. Sad to say, there will be folks who will send serious coinage for whatever is hocked at midnight on infomercial channels.

  92. At work, didn’t have time to play all the videos, but a quick question:

    You show how the temp from the IR bulb changes as the jars are moved in front of the IR light.

    Since the majority of the light enters from the top, did you show the effect of the light shining through the lids? Seems to me there’s more mass (because of the handle), and an un-even thickness (cross-section). Might be interesting to see how much heat the lids retain.

  93. Re: “Air is a better conductor of heat than CO2.”

    Of course it is. Air has water vapor in it. CO2 does not. Algore is a scam artist.

  94. Strange that the “Science Guy” doesn’t know that in science you perform the experiment before you draw your conclusions.

    I used to like that guy. Now, he sickens me.

  95. Espen says:
    October 19, 2011 at 3:18 am

    “To those who mentioned the Mythbusters episode: Did they use IR-transparent containers? (Plexiglass?)”

    I believe it was Mylar film. And under those conditions you might see a transient effect. Put the temp sensor near the absorbing wall, it will heat faster in air. Put it near the front mylar film, the CO2 will heat faster. What confounds all of these experiments (including the Woods experiment) is local thermal equilibrium. The whole apparatus wants to come to the same temperature regardless of composition, just like the objects in your living room. This doesn’t mean there is no greenhouse effect (which doesn’t matter anyway because as long as you have free convection surface temperature is controlled by the gas law).

  96. mkelly says:
    September 28, 2011 at 9:33 am
    If Q=m*Cp*dT then I have a problem with this.

    The above entry using specific heat concluded that for the same amount of Q that CO2 could not have a higher T than air given the same volume. Mr. Watts has proven my conclusion.

    Thank you for all you do, Anthony.

  97. the mythbusters episode is here-

    the difference there would probably be the material used for the enclosure (some form of plastic), the proximity of the light source, and the probable quantity of co2 and methane. it seems they deem it not necessary to state what levels of co2 they use, but from the video it looks like 7%. maybe it would be worth re doing the experiment at 100,000ppm or so.

  98. This experiment does not work, but it does not disprove AGW. The atmosphere is much thicker than a cookie jar.

  99. In a different context, Al Gore’s fraudulent demonstration would be legally actionable.
    In the world as it is, Al Gore’s action is exculpable.

  100. Dear Anthony,
    there is amistake in Your excellent Work, The sentence after step three is wrong.; A real glass house is not heated by the trapped IR as Prof. Wood has shown in his experiment by using NaCl,which is transparent for Infrared, instead of glass. The glass house is heated by the trapped air.

  101. Anthony demonstrates what it is to have an instinct for the empirical. Not one Warmista has demonstrated that he possesses an instinct for the empirical. Many Warmista have demonstrated in peer reviewed work that they have no such instinct.

    Many thanks to you, Anthony.

  102. It’s worth noting that the whole origin of global warming involves reusing Arrhenius’s work from 1896. The problem here lies that Arrhenius was falsified in his own time. This didn’t stop Callender and Keeling building greenhouse warming off a decades-disproven body of work.

    After all, millions in grants are far more important than academic honesty.

    For those interested, I recommend “Falsi cation Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse E ffects
    Within The Frame Of Physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner.

  103. “Gore FAIL.”? No Gore FRAUD!!

    Gore already knew this experiment failed. How could he not? But he needed it to succeed. So he deliberately fabricated the experiment and results. The man is a FRAUD!

  104. What about the heat capacities of air vs. CO2? CO2 has a lower heat capacity than air, so if I remember my P-chem correctly, the same heat addition should cause the temperature of CO2 to rise more than the temperature of air.

  105. Bill Nye is NOT a science guy — he is a check book guy. Al (Man Bear Pig) Gore is a modern day flim flam con man — a grifter. 100 years ago he would have sold snake oil, 50 years ago used cars, 25 years ago Black Helicopter books, today it’s CO2 lies. The props may change, but this is the same old story — the Confidence Game. Congrats Anthony, Instapundit has picked up your post.

  106. There could be differences in the bulbs so I recommend repeating but switching jars. Put CO2 into Jar A and leave Jar B as air. Do not move anything when you repeat, other than lifting the lids. Let Jar B air out, and then put CO2 into Jar A and repeat. This will eliminate most experimental errors and is a good control.

  107. This whole experiment is thoroughly flawed. CO2 absorption is strong at 2.7, 4.3 and 14um. That glass jar is opaque for wavelengths longer than 2.5 um. There is no way that the relevant radiation is getting to the CO2 under any circumstances.

  108. @Anthony

    What you’ve shown is what I have been trying to tell lay people to think of when considering the effect of GHGs. They are insulators. Clearly in your experiment you’ve shown the enriched CO2 acting as an insulator slowing down both warm-up and cool-down. If people would simply acknowledge this insulating property and then take a step further and acknowledge that the gases have a peculiar effect where they let visible sunlight pass through to warm something up on the surface unimpeded then impede the thermal radiation that is emitted when the surface is cooling they pretty have all the conceptual information they need to understand what’s going on.

    Gore’s experiment however is an outright fraud. He didn’t actually perform it and the results he claims are not replicable. One needs to use visible light for this experiment to work as advertised. The heating must occur from the inside out not the outside in. This becomes obvious if one merely considers CO2 as an insulator. If you apply heat from the outside, which you did by heating the glass, then the higher fraction of CO2 provides better insulation between the thermometer and the glass. If you applied heat from the inside then the CO2 would impede the heat from escaping the jar. In order to perform this properly you need to use visible light as the heat source like the Mythbusters did:

  109. Overall, great debunking of a “simple lab experiment”.

    The question, if he/they (Gore/Nye) will misrepresent and misslead folks in this manner, what else do they say that is also not accurate? Is anything that Gore is saying regarding CAGW by CO2 any more factually accurate than this?

    He is advising heads of state.

    Anyone else see this as a major problem?

  110. You are my hero Anthony! Being a former instrumentation engineer who used to accurately measure temperatures at nuclear power plants, I loved this experiment! I know you wanted to duplicate Gore’s experiment, but I would have placed the two jars outside in direct sunlight. That would have eliminated any possibility of one infra-red lamp being stronger than the other, as well eliminate the problem you noted with the glass of the jars blocking the infra-red on the way in.

    P.S. Mr. Clapham, your “terrier with a rat” analogy is perfect. LOL!

  111. Anthony-

    As a follower of your site for many years now, I want to thank you. Being self employed I am able to visit here quite often during the day. I have been here before climate-gate and before your reference pages. This latest experiment is yet another example of the curiosity that drives all of us to look past what we are told is true. You are a true scientist, in the same vein as those who questioned the church about their explanations for the world around them. Through you I have learned more about the way our climate works than I ever did in school. Your unpaid dedication to helping others is commendable to say the least. In all honesty I would recommend you receive a nobel prize before many of the people who have. I know you have changed my life and I’m sure many others. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.

  112. Anthony, the only thing I would have added is thermocouples on the glass jars. At the top middle and bottom of the jars to show the glass heating up. Then you would have been able to demonstrate that the glass jars were the heat source not the IR from the lamps.

  113. Anthony
    Could you please respond to the comment by Juraj V.:

    Juraj V. says:
    October 19, 2011 at 12:19 am
    “The way an actual greenhouse works is by tapping infrared radiation. ”
    No, real greenhouse works by preventing the escape of warm air up. Proved by Wood
    experiment and replicated by Nasif Nahle here.

    http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html

    I ask because the referenced article by Nasif Nahle has the following sentence in its conclusion:
    “The greenhouse effect inside greenhouses is due to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the environment and it is not related, neither obeys, to any kind of “trapped” radiation.”

    If Mr. Nahle is correct, then your post here has not been helpful to people trying to understand greenhouses.

  114. Steve C says:
    October 19, 2011 at 1:25
    Y’know, it occurs to me that, if only for the time she lets you spend on all this, Mrs. W. must be a strong contender for sainthood.
    —————————————-
    Steve, I was considering nominating Anthony for sainthood, knighthood, a medal or something but, now that you mention it maybe it is the missus we should be looking into.

  115. Nicely done. Excellent straightforward design and you gave their claims far more examination than was warranted. You could not have been fairer in your “replication”. Outstanding!

  116. hhhmmmm. Maybe water vapor IS a better greenhouse gas than CO2. Plus remember to replicate what is actually happening in the atmosphere, you should be adding just 1ml of CO2 into the second jar, which should bring DOWN the temperature .0000000001º F.

  117. Good protocol and methodology. And you carried it much further than was strictly necessary to prove your hypothesis.

    Mr Gore’s experimental design may please the hoi polloi, but it does not come close to being an atmospheric model, and is problematic in several aspects; primarily 1). IR blocking properties of glass. 2). Adiabatic cooling due to expansion of CO2. But he’s trying. If he had majored in science instead of journalism he might be a fair bench tech by now.

    Charlie

  118. Great work. One minor criticism is that it would have been beneficial as a control to swap the lamps (and maybe gas mixtures) between the jars and repeat the exercises. This would have allowed elimination of energy source differences between the heat lamps. (Or I am assuming since I cannot actually see the videos right now and have only read the write up.)

  119. Scientist for truth, thanks for pointing out the work by R W Wood. The conventional explanation of the glass greenhouse effect working by trapping IR never did make total sense to me, as rigid plastic sheet shelters, poly tunnels, simple netted tunnels and tents also experience the greenhouse effect.

  120. Robert Wood: “This experiment does not work, but it does not disprove AGW. The atmosphere is much thicker than a cookie jar.”
    Anthony doesn’t have to disprove AGW with the experiment. He attempts to replicate Gore’s experiment, which proports to demonstrate that CO2 causes a temperature increase in a cookie jar. Despite his best effort, no difference results, throwing Gore’s integrity in doubt.
    He takes it a step further by explaining why an increase might occur for reasons other than CO2 absorption of infrared.
    If Gore believes the cookie jar model is an accurate portrayal of atmospheric dynamics, he has the burden of proof. I believe the serious scientists who push climate change would be embarrassed by Gore’s shell game deception.

  121. First of all GOOD JOB ANTHONY !

    Reading about the results others got isn’t as much fun as doing it myself.

    I also know what to believe and what is BS. I am an engineer and am quite good at recognizing BS.

    I did my own version of the 101 experiment.

    I used 1 plastic jar and 1 sunlamp to eliminate the variables in jar thickness and sunlamp brightness. I lined the bottom with paper towels so the thermometer wouldn’t be sampling the jar material temperature. The distance was also measured and repeatable. I didn’t turn the sunlamp off ever. [each trial was 10 minutes]

    The top was open but CO2 is heavier than air and there was no wind.

    CO2 was courtesy of baking soda vinegar and water. I have no meter to measure %.CO2 But it was close to 100 %.

    I bought an instant read digital meat thermometer [Farberware] accurate to .1 ° F [at least repeatable] . I used only one because different ones differ by .2 ° F or more.

    Between trials I brought the vessel to the same temperature.

    I repeated each trial several times and obtained a baseline.

    Results:
    Baseline:
    Heating was about 39.7 ° F with a range of +or – 1 °
    [the amount of light hitting the thermometer was hard to keep constant.]

    CO2 trials

    Heating was 39.4 ° F with the same error range.

    The results suggest even 100 % CO2 produces no measurable warming.
    BTW
    I too was disappointed in Mythbusters.

  122. Yield says:
    October 19, 2011 at 5:05 am

    Seriously you spent all this time to disprove an analogy…..

    No, what he proved is that Al Gore doesn’t understand how greenhouse gases work and more importantly, that he is a fraud because his video was obviously faked.

    Awesome work, Anthony. Just wonderful.

  123. ScientistForTruth is correct that this explanation of how a “real greenhouse” works is false:

    The way an actual greenhouse works is by trapping infrared radiation. Glass is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared light, as we see below

    To follow up on his comments:

    It is true that the interior of the greenhouse can warm more in the daytime by blocking convective heat energy loss, but paradoxically at night, it can cool more rapidly inside the greenhouse than outside.

    The effect of the interior of a greenhouse getting cooler at night is shown in this document. (See figure 1.) As you can see from the real-world data, the greenhouse primarily increases daytime temperature, which is when having warming temperatures is really important for plant growth, because that’s when there is light energy present for the plant to grow. But it also cools more than the outside temperature (in typical nocturnal conditions).

    Increasing nighttime temperatures would be of advantage only if you were in danger of frost, and any plant nursery person (e.g., my wife) would tell you that what they do is put out salamander heaters and large fans to keep the temperature of the greenhouse elevated, not rely on the greenhouse to keep it warm at night.

    The reason is that greenhouses typically cool more at nighttime than the outside air is because on a typical night, a temperature inversion is set up, and in the “unprotected environment” as you get advection of air (“wind”) across the ground resulting in air exchange between the surface and higher altitudes (the wind moves faster higher up than it does near the surface due to surface friction)—paradoxically when you get a wind gust at night, you see a jump in surface ar temperature as a result of this.

    The greenhouse, because it is blocking advective air motion (e.g., winds), cools to the temperature that would be present if there were no mechanical exchange of air between higher and lower altitudes…. only on a perfectly windless night would you expect the two cases (surface air temperature exterior and surface air temperature interior to the greenhouse) to converge.

    In plain english, on a cold, windless night it gets much colder near the ground and a larger temperature inversion gets set up in the nocturnal boundary layer.

    The above reference also shows that if you add IR blocking material, the temperature is higher than it would have been without the IR blocking material, but the effect is very minor and probably not cost effective.

    You can get a reduction in heat energy loss at night just by putting row cover over your plants. It simply blocks convection and wind. Wind over plants causes evaporative heat energy loss, and can cause frost or cold damage, of course.

    (This comment is based on a comment I left on JeffID’s blog here)

  124. I gave up on Gore’s claim to be an intellectual leader when I realized that he almost never went to class at Harvard . As an underclassman he arrogantly claimed he already learned everything at St Alban’s prep school. Later he joined the antiwar crowd and stayed high until graduation. There was also a long New Yorker article that documented his pretentious phoney intellectualism. So now he refuses to debate because he is just a wannabe dictator. None of this sits well with this PhD.

  125. stevo says:
    October 19, 2011 at 6:33 am

    Watts fail, I think. Tyndall did better than you and that was more than a century ago.

    We eagerly await your demonstration falsifying Anthony’s results! We also hope that we will not hear from you again… until you do! GK

  126. I sent e-mail to Bill Nye, asking for his analysis on how the experiment was done to obtain Gore’s result, with a link to Anthony’s careful replication.

    We will see if there is a response.

  127. Well done Anthony!

    I know you were duplicating the manbearpig video experiment but, isn’t the radiation source of the experiment wrong to begin with? I didn’t know the sun was a big, infrared, heat lamp.

    Why not take the two jars and put them in real sunlight and wait an hour. That should be enough time because you can make some good sun tea in that time in Phoenix.

  128. Media Matters exposed themselves as frauds as well. And Al Gore could not make his case even with the use of a white lab coat.

  129. Anthony,

    Whether or not the Gore demonstration was staged:
    1.) This experiment has been performed countless times in formal scientific context since the 19th century. If Svante Arrhenius or Guy Callendar were alive, I’m sure they would be glad to show you how to do it.
    2.) As a classroom demonstration this has been performed countless times (including Mythbusters) and a simple google search will point you in the right direction of good instructions.
    3.) I don’t care what your positions are on the complicated feedbacks and cycles of the earth climate system. The physics of a bottle with CO2 is basic thermo. Are you questioning the physics on that level? Really? If not, what is your claim, except to point out that the experiment is harder than the edited Gore video makes it seem?
    4.) True, infrared will not transmit *directly* through normal glass. But, the infrared lamp will heat the glass, and this heat can transfer to the gas through conduction, convection, and re-radiation. So your point about the transparency is a bit of a red herring.

    In short, is your point to prove that CO2 should not have a warming effect? Or is it to prove that you personally cannot reproduce this century-old science?

    If the effect is real and testable, than no amount of camera angles in the Gore video can change that point.

    REPLY: Neither, my point is that Gore’s experiment doesn’t work as advertised, and they faked results in post production. – Anthony

  130. >> stevo says:
    October 19, 2011 at 6:33 am
    Watts fail, I think. Tyndall did better than you and that was more than a century ago. <<

    Tyndall proved Al Gore was lying a century ago? Wow, I had no idea Al was that old.

  131. Very well done!
    One thing, Anthony;
    Watt about getting this experiment into a Physics Journal?
    If you could manage that, others can use it as a reference……. Or isnt it allowed to have writings in such journals about basic physics anymore? Only stuff about parallell universes nowadays, maybe.

  132. Anybody with a background in Physics can tell you that this wasn’t going to show results like they did.

    First any global warming is a very large scale effect. Lots of forces in nature don’t scale down (or up) easily. Small things like the orientation of the thermometer could make a lot of difference in the heating.

    But in this case it was pretty easy to see what he did. “Take 2 identical bottles … and seal therm”. He then unseals the CO2 bottle to put the hose in. At 1:01 — “then run a hose from a source of CO2 into one of the bottles”. The lid is laying on the hose that was putting CO2 in the bottle, so it wasn’t sealed. With the heat lamp over the bottles more heat entered through the roof. Running the experiment with 1 sealed bottle and one unsealed is really bad form.

  133. Bill Nye’s email address is on his website. I dropped him a line with this URL. It will be interesting to see what he has to say.

  134. Anthony, Well done! What you have shown is that the “Real World” is actually a lot more complicated. This is why real experiments are necessary to test theories and hypotheses. It is a travesty that there are next to NO real experiments attempting to verify the assumptions of man-made CAGW. The CLOUD experiment in CERN has taken years to design and construct and will take years to get data – demonstrating how complex real world systems are!

    Considering the way public policies are being adjusted in the face of the CAGW threat, it is a total travesty that there is not one iota of robust experimental evidence to support CAGW.

  135. It’s amazing that these people still don’t seem to understand they can’t fake their results.

    A perfect analogy for the whole AGW movement. It’s like the Tiljander series on a desktop.

  136. Has anyone contacted Bill Nye to give himself a chance to defend himself? There does seem to be a possibility of fraud involved in Gore’s broadcast if the experiment was faked and money was solicited. Does the FCC regulate such matters?

    Contact Bill Nye
    To contact Bill Nye:
    e-mail: bnsg@billnye.com

    Or write:
    Nye Labs, LLC
    Bill Nye The Science Guy
    4742 42nd Avenue SW, #143
    Seattle, WA 98116

  137. Mosher: “That results in a surface that cools less rapidily than it would otherwise.”

    But by how much? Every day has at least 8 hours of no sunshine. If an extra 100ppm of CO2 only keeps the earth warmer an extra hour or even 6 hours in a day then (as we all suspect) there is nothing to worry about.

    How long does an extra 100pm delay cooling Mosher?

  138. steven mosher says: October 19, 2011 at 4:52 am

    I’ve read this blog for many years and from it learned basically just what you said about the effects of additional CO2, but you said it in such a clear, understandable, and concise way…that was really awesome.

    Thanks,

  139. I noticed that Anthonie’s jars were not pressure sealed. That seems to be the key.

    The only people who could replicate the results seemed to use sealed containers.

    The slight difference in fall rate is more germane to a planet but it isn’t good TV because it is so slight even with thousands of times greater concentration of CO2.

  140. BTW, the Mythbusters experiment has a huge problem. If you look closely you will note that the CO2 and methane greenhouses were on the interior. The controls were on the outside. Oops.

  141. Scientistfortruth. Wiki now talks about “real” greenhouses and and uses Woods experiment to explain how they work. This is at complete odds to what millions of us were taught at school, that being the explanation that anthony has posted. Some are not happy with this as seen in the discussion page and they even question Woods’ work. As previously stated the accepted explanation of the greenhouse effect never made total sense to me but It would have been polite of Wiki to have put up a few notes to say all the school books are wrong and whole generations of school children have been misinformed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

    So just to be sure I checked with the good old BBC, unfortunately they don’t discuss real green houses and direct their reader to Wiki.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/atmosphere_and_climate/greenhouse_effect

    Methinks someone needs to build two identical greenhouses one coated in a material that is transparent to both visible and infrared light and the other that blocks infrared light (glass) and test this out.

  142. Anthony, that took me back to my first science experiment in school involving a metal ball, a Bunsen burner and a metal ring, the aim to explain thermal expansion!

    After clearing the cobwebs and searching the attic I found I still have the school excersise book and guess what? There was an accurate list of the items used, along with the makers names and even serial numbers all laid out in experimental scientific form, as we were taught in the 1960′s.

    I find it extremely sad that you have had to waste your valuable family time replicating the rubbish Gore’s people put out (there is no doubt in my mind that he could not have even put this basic experiment together without assistance)! Then again, anything stopping Gore making more money from terminological inexactness is worth the effort…(with thanks to W. Churchill for giving me the vocabulary to avoid saying liar!)

  143. I hope a Science book publisher contacts you soon asking you to submit your experimental plan targeting both elementary junior high school Science classes. It’s been a few years since my days of observing (4th and 5th grade science classes) and then running scientific experiments (6- 9th grades, general science, chemistry and physics classes) in the Ohio public schools.

    I can’t think of a better way for our youth to understand the complexity of science and the importance of a well designed experimental plan then for them to replicate your experiments.

  144. This shouldn’t come as a surprise–Al Gore never was, isn’t, and never will be a scientist. This evidence clearly demonstrates it.

    Al Gore the Fraud! Maybe it should be Al Gore the Failure! Or Al Gore the lying rascal!

  145. But but but the post normal hypothesis consensus science says you don’t have to actually do the experiment only model the experiment. Mr. Gore only had to model the experiment to prove his hypothesis, Mr. Watts your actual experiment and real data must be flawed (where is your model ?) !!

  146. Haven’t read all the comments, but the ‘experiment’ fails at container. Those cookie jars are what I use to steep brandies. The lids do not fit. Period. I have had *adult* Drosophila make their way inside. Gas exchange would be a breeze.

  147. stevo says:
    October 19, 2011 at 6:33 am
    “Watts fail, I think. Tyndall did better than you and that was more than a century ago.”

    Stevo, It seems to me Anthony was replicating “Gore’s People” not Tyndall.

  148. Steven Mosher says:

    So any and all experiments using closed containers are wrong from the START. they are wrong because they do NOT test what the theory predicts.

    1. That the earth will reradiate from a higher altitude
    2. that the surface will consequently COOL LESS RAPIDLY.. or be “warmer” than it would be without a IR opaque atmosphere.

    you cant test that in a jar

    Henry@Steven
    I agree with you, but I think there are even more reasons why you can’t test it in a box,
    see my comment earlier, here

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/#comment-771336

    However, you seem to suggest that CO2 is transparent to 0-5 um where the sun emits. This is in fact not true.Recently it was discovered that it has some UV absorptions, which is now used to ID it on other planets. It also has absorptions around 2um and it strongly absorbs at 4.3. In fact, I suspect the CO2 meter used in this experiment by Anthony probably is a spectrophotometer set at 4.26 um calibrated at that wavelength for various CO2 concentrations.This causes cooling, not warming, as this radiation ( from the sun) is sent out to space by re-radiation. We can actually measure it as it bounces back from the moon,
    see footnote here :

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011

    Tyndal and Arrhenius were of course completely wrong because they could not see the whole spectrum of a gas….

  149. Robert Wood wrote:
    “This experiment does not work, but it does not disprove AGW.” True, but that was not Anthony’s purpose. Are you trying to move the goalposts, Robert Wood? AGW isn’t his theory. It’s Al Gore’s theory, and it’s up to him and the other advocates to show proof. Disproof of almost any proposition is virtually impossible. Science is about proof, not disproof. (Please read the first chapter of the late Carl Sagan’s “The Demon-Haunted World” for a good explanation of this principle) The Gore/Nye experiment does not support the AGW theory at all. Anthony Watts has shown this by replicating the experiment as closely as possible given that Gore/Nye have not published their methodology. In fact the evidence suggests that Gore/Nye never performed the experiment they rely on to demonstrate the “reality” of AGW. The telethon was called “24 Hours of Reality” (Al Gore’s choice, no doubt). Anthony has shown that those 24 hours contained considerable trickery.

  150. Kohl says:
    October 19, 2011 at 2:04 am

    This is just so sweet!

    Perhaps the problem is that Mr Gore really does think that it is just science 101. That is why he goes astray…. But then again, he KNEW the experiment was fabricated.

    I’m beginning to think that he is really just another charlatan showman desperately ‘scratching a living’ from the whole AGW thing ….. But then again, he MAKES SO MUCH out of it.

    The Big Lie makes Big Money! So thanks a lot Big Al, it’s worse than we thought! Well almost, since, like leapords, these Climate Science charlatans can’t ever change their spots.

    [Likewise, is anyone still for Obama’s Spendulus et Lootus Maximus? At least he already repeated the experiment for us right out in the open. Again!]

  151. Excellent Job, Anthony! Could you possibly put all this on videodisc or tape and organize a process whereby it would go to all the high schools where Gore tried to brainwash the kids with his false stunt? Even if this was shown to a different group of kids due to the elapsed time between the programming and the de-programming, it could do some great global good.

  152. I thoroughly enjoyed this, Anthony. Thanks very much for taking the time and trouble for all of us.

    As others have said, just to completely nail it, you could have switched lamps around to eliminate possible differences in the IR bulbs. But I suppose your IR-reading device showed the temps of the bulbs were similar?

    I think Mosher is right – there’s no way to do a convincing experiment in an enclosed system to demonstrate the GHG effect. But the point is, Al Gore etc. created the straw man, and so can’t complain when you trash it in their own terms. And of course, neither you nor most sceptics actually deny the GHG effect.

  153. I agree with Karl that the experiment should be run twice. The IR bulbs cannot be expected to provide exactly 100W output. Also there may be some differences in the cookie jars. By running the experiment again, and swapping the air and CO2 mixtures, these variables can be eliminated. Although Gore/Nye did not bother to do this.

    Just for grins have you considered running the experiment with dry air vs. humid air ?

  154. Lie an intentionally false statement

    Fraud wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain
    See also: cheating, swindling, embezzlement, deceit, deception, double-dealing, chicanery, sharp practice.

    Arrest Al Gore !!!!

    On a side note: perhaps Anthony you could “reach out” to Bill Nye the Science Liar and see if he was duped or was he fully aware of the fraud { which would indicate a conspiracy }

    REPLY: Never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence – Anthony

  155. stevo says: October 19, 2011 at 6:33 am Watts fail, I think. Tyndall did better than you and that was more than a century ago.

    Uh, Stevo, you may wish to brush up on your “reading for comprehension” skills. Mr. Watts was not testing whether CO2 absorbs IR. No one is arguing that CO2 is transparent to IR. Mr. Watts was only testing whether certain CAGW advocates just make up things and present them as fact. Gore fail. Nye fail. Stevo fail.

    Turboblocke says: October 19, 2011 at 6:06 am Can anyone who believes that CO2 does not absorb infra-red explain how Antony’s “portable CO2 meter” ( “It uses a non-dispersive infrared diffusion sensor (NDIR) which is self calibrating, which seems perfect for the job.”) was able to measure CO2 concentration?

    You may want to get with Stevo and see whether the two of you can get a group discount on those “reading for comprehension” courses.

  156. What is missing in Anthony’s experiment is a control run.

    RomanM’s suggestion of rerunning the experiment, swapping which jar gets CO2 vs air eliminates many of the unknowns of the setup, such as potentially uneven illumination. This form of control run is better than the other suggested improvement of a 1st run with air in both jars, and then a 2nd with CO2 in both jars, bercause RomanM’s suggestion compensates for things like changes in ambient temperature between the two runs.

  157. Anthony:

    Brillant work! I would caution you however, about the “Greenhouse warmth” claim, with regard typical borosilicate glass being a “one way valve” for 6 to 12 Micron IR.

    Please see this: http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Experiment_on_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

    I also have a couple 1950′s and 1960′s Meteorology/Atm Physics texts which explicitly call out Dr. Wood’s 1909 tests, and then say “The so-called Greenhouse effect should be refered to as the ‘Atmopsheric Effect’, and it is unique to a planetary atmospheric situation..”

    Thus the term “Greenhouse gas” is, at its base in error.

    I hope you realize this in NO WAY detracts from your trashing the Gore-a-bull work!

  158. Anthony, I can’t view the videos w/a dial-up connection, but I assume the CO2 concentration was near 100%. If 100% CO2 can only make ~.5F differences, the actual 280 to 390 ppm atmospheric change wouldn’t be even remotely detectable, at least w/this experimental setup.

    Nye/Gore’s problem now will be the cover-up…

  159. Dear Anthony,

    Could you run again, with intense visible light shining through the glass onto a black surface, so that the infared is produced inside the jar. It would be more representative of the Earth, if not of Gore’s version.

    Cheers.
    R

  160. What Anthony has done here was to prove Gore to be a fraud and has documented that very well by replicating Gores claimed experiment.

    As for other discussion of specific details relating to the physics involved concerning IR properties of CO2, air, glass, heat transfer, heat capacity, lighting sources, etc., that is another can of worms. An aquarium (2 ea) could be used in direct sunlight and may provide more accurate results and be easier to acquire than the specified cookie jars if testing this other can of worms.

    But the main point is that Anthony was testing Gore’s so called experiment and went to quite a bit of effort in replicating it and documenting the results, thus proving Gore to be the fraud that he is. To my knowledge, in this case, Anthony is the only person on the planet to do this. Thus he clearly qualifies as an extraordinary individual.

  161. Gore has no idea that for science to be real is must be reproducible. This is the same mistake ClimateGate made. They thought they were safe if they could keep others from seeing the data they were working with. It amazes how stable tempertures have been in the last 100 yrs moving less than 0.8 degrees celcius. That’s only 0.008 degrees per yr. Building one new road or building that replaces some trees can do that.

  162. I didn’t see this but I would have rerun the experiment, by switching the AIR/CO2 jars to the exact location where the other one sat. Hence, determining if the bulbs variation or the height variation cause the result.

  163. @ RomanM and Charlie A

    Yes I didn’t think to run a control run like suggested since Gore’s video made such bold claims that the effect would be so large and almost immediately visible.

    But I do have the equipment setup still for the calibrated datalogger, so I can do that when I have time this weekend and report the results here. One thing I did do (when I first got the jars in) was to weigh them to see if there was any difference in mass, and I found a 4 gram difference (out of about 1900 grams IIRC). I don’t think it is significant, but worth noting.

    As for controlling the illumination, given the experimental setup by Gore, again no mention of it, but I’ll see if there is some way I can measure the IR bulb output.

    I may also run the experiment again with a single jar in two runs with/without CO2 and see what I get, that would eliminate any small biases in the bulbs, jars, and fixtures.

  164. Matt says:
    October 19, 2011 at 7:36 am

    What a good Warmista you are! You do not address the details of Anthony’s work to reproduce the Gore “experiment.” Instead, you cite testimony about others who have done similar experiments. You cite theory which, according to you, requires that the Gore experiment must work. No instinct for the empirical. Good Warmista.

  165. >>>Steve Mosher
    >>>you cant test that in a jar

    Steve,

    If you followed my suggestion and shone an SW light onto a black surface in the jar (creating LW radiation), and if the surrounding CO2 reradiated some of that LW back, would not the black surface be slightly warmer in the CO2 jar?

    No idea if it would work – just thinkin’.

    R

    .

  166. The claim is this shows the greenhouse effect. Well, it is perhaps a greenhouse but it certainly is not an atmosphere which is open at that top. It is nice to see this nonsense challenged directly.

    The experiment can be (slightly) challenged on the basis that the lamps or jars may be different. Changing nothing else, let it run with the lamps swapped. Then swap the CO2 to the other jar, and lastly swap the lamps back, performing a run each time.

    You have everything bought and set up so let ‘er run. It is quite possible the small difference in temperature will reverse for one of the runs. If the results are consistent, it will be difficult challenge the null result. The claim that the setup will demonstrate the greenhouse gas effect will have been conclusively falsified. This falsification is implicit in the faked temperature display, nicely exposed, but you have shown it explicitly.

  167. But it really is indicative of their level of desperation. Making stuff up to support your core theory was risky and pointless. The truth will out as it always does.

    Let’s see if this faithful attempt to honestly test Gore’s high school physics “experiment” gets picked up by the Main Stream Media. Lies like this ruin peoples careers.

  168. Kohl says: October 19, 2011 at 2:04 am Perhaps the problem is that Mr Gore really does think that it is just science 101.

    Yes! I have several very bright friends who think that CAGW is a fact, and the thing that they hold in common is the belief that climate study is explainable by Science 101. I have had one of them tell me “It’s just simple physics!”

    Uh, no. Climate science is NOT science 101. Climate science is not even rocket science. It is MUCH, MUCH, more complicated than mere rocket science. Rocket science can be modeled by systems with only a limited number (ten? or twenty? thirty?) of variables, pretty much all of them directly measurable and predictable. Not so climate. Climate is intrinsically hard!

    Bill Nye is a person who has achieved success and fame in his field, that of playing make-believe as a tool for illustrating middle school level science. It is sad that he thinks his success as a pedagogue qualifies him to preach to real scientists.

  169. I can understand getting this kind of smoke and mirrors trickery from Gore but I cannot understand how Bill Nye would tolerate it. I have alot of faith in Nye, I do not agree with him about CAGW but I still beleive he is a science guy at heart. The fact that he lent his voice to a simple high school physics experiment distorted for propaganda is deeply troubling and disappointing to me.

    I expected more from Nye.

  170. Jason Calley says:
    October 19, 2011 at 8:36 am

    Very well said. Everyone who has not understood that Anthony’s work is about the particulars of Gore’s work should read Jason’s post. Anthony argues that Gore’s presentation of the experiment and his claims about it reveal that the experiment was not actually done. It matters not at all that others have done this experiment more professionally or with different results. Anthony is not trying to prove something about climate science but to prove something about Gore.

  171. yay!!! now we no longer have to listen to the co2 fetishists claiming supernatural powers for their favorite gas! this settles the issue for all time and the co2 shrimpers will slink off in shame.
    right? and all the corollary baloney whirls down the vortex with a whoosh and a gurgle. right?
    no more demonic carbonic ghg freaks! right?

  172. I remember in our debate on O’Reilly he brought up the Venutian atmosphere and tried to link it to earth, as if a) He was around at the time of the creation and had knowledge that Venus was like Earth and b) apparently the Venutians messed up their atmosphere and looked what happen. Nothing about the density of the atmosphere on Venus, just trying to use an example that had nothing to do with the argument on the trace amounts of co2 in our atmosphere and link it to the warmth of Venus.
    You know what they say. Men are from Mars, Women from Venus and the Warmingistas are truly out of this world… as far as reality goes

  173. With such further damning proof of Gores continued cheating and lying on everything he promotes on the back of the GW scare, should we not put together a complete list of the proven lies and scientific fraud that formed the basis of his and Pachauri’s awarding of the Nobel Prize, and send it to the Nobel Prize committee in an effort to have the award overturned and thereby have the dignity of the prize restored?

  174. stevo says:
    October 19, 2011 at 6:33 am
    “Watts fail, I think. Tyndall did better than you and that was more than a century ago.”

    Poor stevo, just can’t admit that his/her hero Gore is a charlatan and a congenital prevaricator. Any halfwit knows Antony’s efforts were directed entirely at showing that Gore’s “experiment” was faked and that an attempt at duplicating Gore’s experiment would fail to show the temperature differential claimed by the Gore experiment. Wisdom is saying nothing when you have nothing constructive to offer.

  175. Just looking at this experiment it’s obvious to anyone who’s worked in IR that the majority of the heating is not going to be from IR acting on the gases, glass is pretty opaque to IR. The method is as Anthony says, the glass heats up and heats the gas by conduction/contact. I’ve had experience with IR windows for both near and far IR applications, and they are pricey, plain glass won’t work. For far IR, take a look at the windows on something like an Army Apache TADS pod, the window for the FLIR is opaque to visible, it’s made of germanium. But hey, I guess a little white lie in something like this is justified if, like, the cause is really, really important, right?

  176. I followed the link to the thread about the earlier post on the experiment being faked. Believers and sceptics seem to be talking past each other in that most commenters there are missing the point and seem to think that we think that pointing out that Gore’s experiment was faked proves that CO2 doesn’t cause warming. I have seen instructions for a similar experiment that uses fish tanks that are open at the top but in most other ways is similar to this one. As Jason Calley says, reality is a lot more complex. The biosphere of a planet is nothing like a fish tank or a glass jar and working out what might happen in it is far from simple. I did notice that the discussion over there was completely one sided and that no-one has been over there to give them an update.

  177. Anthony- if you repeated the experiment with a cup of water in each jar, you’d shut down the whole climate choir!

  178. Jason, I hate sophomores for that reason. They think they can calculate everything out to ten decimal places and look down on people who mention uncertainty. Then, they hit the junior level classes and realize exactly what it is.

    Not only did was the experiment not done on the show (I could undertand this part to improve cinematography), but it did not demonstrate the claimed effect, and it could not work in reality. If they had done it at all, they would have known the results and not included it. Either the entire staff was incompetent and never did the experiement or fraudulent and deliberately lied to the viewers. I can expect this from a politician like Gore. However, I have to say I am disappointed in Dr. Nye. I have such fond memories of his show, but this was completely unacceptable and I will not be purchasing that box set for my daughter because of it.

  179. “[My] point is that Gore’s experiment doesn’t work as advertised, and they faked results in post production. – Anthony”

    Beautifully done and point made.

    Al Gore and friends are sure CO2 is a scary gas and I expect will handwave this debunking away as an inconvenient truth that can be ignored. After all, it isn’t the CO2 acting directly that is the real scary part… the climate being inherently unstable with positive feedbacks from clouds. That’s how they go from the about 1 deg C for a CO2 doubling in the absence of clouds (I don’t think that is in serious doubt) to 3 and more degrees in computer simulations. There’s nothing magic separating anthropogenic CO2 from any other forcing; I believe *any* forcing gets the same multiplier.

    For all that claimed instability, the planet temperatures have been remarkably stable over the past 500+ million years without a confirmed runaway positive feedback event. Dick Alley in his oft cited AGU talk (Dec ’09) pegged the Great Dying, the Permian-Triassic extinction, as a candidate. Alley claimed there just wasn’t anything besides CO2 to explain that one, ignoring the inconvenient truth that the P-T was also coincident with a galactic cosmic ray flux minima. So was the PT an example of CO2 driven climate and a hot, cloud covered planet, or an example of GCR’s being mostly absent and a relatively cloudless, hot planet being the result?

    Maybe Gore & Nye will slap a video together showing how much warmer cloudy days are compared to sunny days.

  180. steven mosher says:
    October 19, 2011 at 4:52 am

    SW radiation hits the earth and warms it. The earth gives off IR. That IR must return to space. If the atmosphere was transparent to IR the effective radiating altitude would be the surface. But the atmosphere is not transparent to IR. So the reradiates from a higher altitude, from a colder regime. That results in a surface that cools less rapidily than it would otherwise. As you add more GHGs the effective altitude at which the earth re radiates goes up and the earth emits from a colder regime. This effectively SLOWS THE RATE of cooling at the surface.

    Radiative myopia. Steve, do yourself a favor: Find a swimming pool somewhere in a desert in high summer. Take a swim and stand in full sunshine without a towel until dry. After your teeth stop chattering you may finally get it. The atmosphere is a giant heat pump driven and governed by the physical and thermodynamic properties of water in all of its three states. 72% of the planet is covered in the stuff miles deep. CO2 cannot act as a refrigerant in the same way at atmospheric temperatures and pressures and any radiative difference induced will simply be pumped back up to the thermopause by the multiple latent heat transitions of water in their many physical forms – ice, clouds, rain, hail, snow, mist, fog, etc.

    The quasi-cyclic chaos we call climate and weather may be interesting but until we again reach the lower state change induced tipping point of water by external celestial means and ice predominates, there is nothing for humanity to worry about. It should be blatantly obvious that Earth has never and cannot ever reach the upper tipping point due to the addition of CO2 or the oceans would no longer exist. CO2 induced run away global warming cannot occur unless you first remove all the water. All the grant attracting minutia of feedbacks/forcings and supposed trends in unknown context are ultimately just unphysical nonsense.

    Nonsense that has wasted a vast amount of human effort that could otherwise have been put to good use; nonsense that, if allowed to continue in its current politically subverted form, has the potential to cause a great deal of hardship, war and death. Dark Ages++.

  181. In “What If There Was No Greenhouse Effect?”, at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/, Dr. Roy Spencer Says:
    “The climate of the Earth is profoundly affected by two competing processes: the greenhouse effect, which acts to warm the lower atmosphere and cool the upper atmosphere, and atmospheric convection (thermals, clouds, precipitation) which does just the opposite: cools the lower atmosphere and warms the upper atmosphere.”

    “While we usually only discuss the greenhouse effect in the context of global warming (that is, the theory that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will lead to higher temperatures in the lower atmosphere), it turns out that the greenhouse effect has a more fundamental role: there would be no weather on Earth without the greenhouse effect.

    Mind you, he is not talking about just CO2, but water vapor also.

    And I think that small-scale experiments trying to measure a very small warming effect such as the one a trace amount of CO2 really has in our atmosphere are bound to fail for both sides of the issue.

    Thanks again, Anthony!

  182. Let’s be very clear about what the key issue is with this experiment.

    Anthony is not trying to dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. He knows it is. He is not trying to replicate the atmosphere. He knows the experiment doesn’t faithfully do that. He’s not trying to prove that increased CO2 will raise the atmospheric temperature.

    And to those who think Anthony’s efforts are a waste of time – like Yield at 5:05 a.m. who mistakenly thought Gore’s video was intended just as an “analogy” – Anthony isn’t claiming that the setup replicates the real world, rather it was intended to replicate, as closely as possible the setup Gore used.

    As several posters have indicated, there are all kinds of variables that would need to be modified or accounted for in order to have an experiment that approximated the real world: type and size of container, amount of CO2, allowance for convection, type and amount of radiation, and on and on. And in the real world there are all kinds of additional factors, such as natural absorbtion rates, long term climate cycles, possible solar influences, and on and on. In fact, it may not be possible to experimentally replicate the climate system. So skeptics might be forgiven for thinking that there are still a lot of open questions about CO2’s influence on temperature and, therefore, climate in the real world.

    Here is the key to what is going on:

    Gore is not trying to argue that the experiment accurately reflects the real world (although he certainly didn’t take any pains to point this out). Nor is he trying to argue that a particular CO2 concentration will cause a particular temperature increase. The real point of his video is to claim that anyone who questions that an increase of CO2 will significantly increase the atmospheric temperature is off their rocker, a quack, a denier, certifiable. Indeed, this basic physics is so obvious, it can be done with a simple high school experiment. Therefore, anyone who questions this fact is denying reality, is unreliable, and must not be trusted. This is the key message of the Climate 101 video.

    The great thing about what Anthony has done is that he took Gore up on it – called his bluff. In addition, to the fact that the experiment does not replicate atmospheric reality, Anthony has demonstrated quite conclusively (although he could still do some more cross checking, like switching CO2 between jars, etc.) that (i) it is not all that simple as a high school science experiment, (ii) the results do not match what Gore’s video claimed, and (iii) Gore’s team misrepresented the experiment in the video. While not conclusively proven, these facts further strongly suggest that Gore’s team also did not get the results they wanted from the experiment, and thus faked the data shown in the video.

    It is unfortunate that Gore can put out this nonsense and many people believe. How many people out there might just uncritically accept Gore’s video without examining it in close detail? It is too bad that Anthony had to spend time and money debunking this.

    However, the silver lining is that Anthony has conclusively shown that in this particular matter, it is Gore who cannot be trusted, and that demonstrating a significant CO2 impact on atmospheric temperatures is not as easy as a simple high school experiment. Further, there are still open questions regarding CO2’s impact that can be asked by the skeptical person, without being a denier of science. The additional silver lining is that perhaps some who haven’t yet looked into these issues will contrast Anthony’s careful, methodical approach with Gore’s sloppy, propagandistic approach and will become interested in looking into these issues more carefully themselves.

  183. Interesting. If Gore and team had done the experiment properly, as you did, they could have maintained that the result proved that CO2 reflected infra-red back to its source and thus assisted in confirming the CO2 AGW hypothesis. As it is they were so invested in their vision of how it would work, they never actually did the experiment.
    Excellent work. You Tube it.

  184. I love the IR cam, gives the ability to clearly demonstrate that what we think is clear and not clear with respect to the spectrum of light used.

    If you watch closely while the IR Cam is being used I think you can see the ghost of Gore giving Anthony the 1 finger salute and screaming ” Bullsh**”. Well I think I saw that :) But Gore’s tombstone has now been officially placed with this simple Physics 101 experiment that anyone can do at home. Think about it, this guy missed being president by a few swinging and dangling chads.

    I would love to see of list of experiments / data that have been rigged to generate a desired outcome. Not sure if Antony can afford the gigs of storage it would take.

  185. Now, instead of using two of everything, you should repeat the experiment with only using only one and the same of everything, without moving anything else than the air inside the jar. The differences in the jars could be enough to show the difference you measured. In any case, it is really far fromt he 2F.

  186. There is no reason to repeat or refine this experiment despite the minor shortcomings of the procedure. The Ideal Gas Law was not violated.

    It really is puzzling that convection and gravity are completely removed from the discussion. Convection spoils the party for the “greenhouse effect”, i.e. back radiation.

    Steve Mosher said:

    the problem with ANY set up of this nature is that it does not really test the theory. The C02 or GHG effect actually works like this. It has nothing to do with C02 “trapping” heat.

    Well Steve, you may wish to inform the many dozens of government science agencies and universities teaching precisely what you say it isn’t. So if you’re going to argue the “theory” of how rising CO2 levels warm the surface isn’t related to a real glass greenhouse, then the science really isn’t settled at all, and it isn’t about basic physics. The Woods experiment is a relevant test of the “greenhouse effect” as described by several notable sources, and the silly jar experiment has been promoted not just by Al Gore, but several well positioned scientists and institutions as well.

    GHG don’t “trap” heat? Really Steve?

    Below are a few examples, but I lost count at two dozen similar sources. Presumably they were authored by qualified individuals or well educated physics students. and not their secretaries, :) My Bold.

    The U.S. government’s Environmental Protection Agency
    The energy that is absorbed is converted in part to heat energy that is re-radiated back into the atmosphere. Heat energy waves are not visible, and are generally in the infrared (long-wavelength) portion of the spectrum compared to visible light. Physical laws show that atmospheric constituents— notably water vapor and carbon dioxide gas—that are transparent to visible light are not transparent to heat waves. Hence, re-radiated energy in the infrared portion of the spectrum is trapped within the atmosphere, keeping the surface temperature warm. This phenomenon is called the “greenhouse effect” because it is exactly the same principle that heats a greenhouse

    http://www.epa.gov/ne/students/pdfs/activ13.pdf

    ————————————————————————-

    Fort Lewis College, Colorado
    This partial trapping of solar radiation is known as the greenhouse effect. The name comes from the fact that a very similar process operates in a greenhouse. Sunlight passes relatively unhindered through glass panes, but much of the infrared radiation reemitted by the plants is blocked by the glass and cannot get out. Consequently, the interior of the greenhouse heats up, and flowers, fruits, and vegetables can grow even on cold wintry days.

    http://physics.fortlewis.edu/Astronomy/a….TML/AT30702.HTM

    ————————————————————————–

    http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/eek/earth/air/global.htm
    Think of the earth as being inside a giant greenhouse. The gases act like a greenhouse’s glass walls — they keep heat from escaping into space, and the earth stays warm.

    Try this easy experiment: Take two jars and put a teaspoon of water in each jar. Put a lid on just one jar. Place both jars in a sunny spot. After a few hours, check on the jars. You’ll see that the open jar hasn’t changed, but the closed jar will be steamy and hot inside. What happened? The heat from the sun could not escape from the closed jar.

  187. To Steven Mosher – some direct observations from a non-scientist. I have been in the desert for extended periods of time, and the jungle for extended periods of time. My direct non-scientific observations are as follows. Daytime temperatures in the desert over 100 degrees fahrenheit, humidity under thirty percent, altitude several hundred feet above sea level – nighttime temperatures in the same place in the forties or lower (degrees fahrenheit), humidity under thirty percent, and of course the same altitude. Daytime temperatures in the jungle in the high nineties (degrees fahrenheit), humidity over ninety percent, and altitude several hundred feet above sea level – nighttime temperatures in the same place in the nineties (degrees fahrenheit), humidity over ninety percent, and of course the same altitude. Chances are, in both environments, CO2 level was not remarkably different. My gut level guess as to why the temperature dropped so much when the sun went down in the desert as compared to the jungle – humidity. The whole purpose of Anthony’s experiment was to replicate Gore’s demonstration and see if he got the same results. He didn’t. People who believe CO2 causes global warming can BS as much as they want, but until they come up with something that proves their theory, or at least comes close, they are just BSing everybody. The purpose of my anecdotal observations was to show that H2O vapor does more to retain heat on this earth many times more than CO2.

  188. Yield says:
    October 19, 2011 at 5:05 am
    Seriously you spent all this time to disprove an analogy…..

    Fascinating comment. Is there a threshold of fraud,,, er “analogy” beyond which you would begin to question or criticize the tactics of some of those who strive to prove AGW and it’s dangerous implications?

  189. From above:

    It is too bad that Anthony had to spend time and money debunking this.

    We should show Anthony our appreciation by filling those two surplus glass jars with tips to help him in his efforts here to get the message out.

    I have already done so.

  190. Great post, Anthony. You really have shown in detail that Gore’s experiment wasn’t as simple as he claims it was. Not to mention it was a complete sham!
    Has anyone tried to prove or disprove the Myth Busters experiment as my old memory serves correctly, they proved the opposite results of what Anthony’s did. One of the differences they used was they measured the rise in temperature using 350ppm compared to I think 380 or 400ppm CO2?
    Keep up the GREAT work Anthony!!!
    Owen Smith

  191. Terrific job Anthony. It’ll be interesting to see what happens from your work.

    I have to say that I’m quite amazed at your stamina. Not only do you have the best blog I’ve ever seen, which by itself must take an incredible amount of time, but you tirelessly run your own business and now are conducting science experements to provide the simple evidence needed by the (poorly educated) public so they can understand how they’re being duped.

    I think I know your secret to getting all of this done… you sleep at a Holiday Inn Express. Come on now, tell us the truth…

  192. Thanks Anthony,

    Since you don’t get big oil money and nothing from Green Peace I dropped some coins in the tip jar. Have a cold one on me.

  193. Thanks Anthony. It’s neat that you followed up your earlier critique, and actually replicated the experiment this time. You should send this in to The Journal of Irreproducible Results.

    http://www.jir.com/

    I just wondered about other people who have done this. I feel a little sorry for science kids being told they have to reproduce the same results.

    It’s in – con – ceivable that what happened to you isn’t being replicated a thousand times over to “captive participants” in middle and high school science classes, who have been forced to take up the challenge to “prove the greenhouse effect”, either at home or in their school labs. Given the importance of AGW, you can bet that dedicated pedagogs (and science administrators) used tax money to order thousands of cookie jars and heat lamps, intent on being the first school on their block (with science grants) to “prove” the greenhouse effects. Those items probably aren’t cheap. Some entrepreneur has probably even been marketing “greenhouse in a jar kits”. Bets?

    But, given that your results seem more likely, an awful lot of erstwhile scientists must have either slunk home feeling they were a failure, or gotten royally ticked. So where are their results? Why are they not raising a stink about this bogus experiment, and asking for their money back?

    If indeed the experiment is a fraud, it should be mandated by every high school administrator with a shred of decency, and repeated til each student demonstrated his unique results, in order to teach some real science in the classrooms across America.

  194. This was an excellent job Anthony. I commend your diligence in carrying this out, and I agree with your final analysis. Of course, none of this has anything to do with actual climate science, but merely shows that the Producer of the Gore 101 video was more interested in the flash rather than real science. I do actually doubt whether they ever even attempted to run the experiment themselves, and were more interested on what looked good on video rather than what worked. For example, the narration in the 101 video says:

    “take two identical BOTTLES…”

    Whereas they actually show glass cookie jars (which are not bottles). The bottles (as used in the BBC experiment) were not very pretty, but of course, as you’ve pointed out, their being plastic bottles allowed for the transmission of IR, whereas in reality, the glass of the cookie jars would block nearly all of it. The glass cookie jars of course looked better and could hold the little globes that the Producer wanted to use, which also meant nothing to the experiment.

    There is one final little thing or way in which your experiment differed from the 101 experiment is that the lid was open on the glass jar with the tube going to the CO2, and the CO2 was being pumped in continuously. I had questioned this before, and wonder about it again. Depending on how close the heat lamp was to that tube and how big the opening was, could heated air the air leak into that opening or could heat conduct down the tube into the container? Having the lid open as the 101 experiment did certainly isn’t a very tight thermal seal.

    But this matters not…as in the end, I fully agree that I would have lost the bet on whether the experiment as illustrated in the 101 video would have worked or not (even though your’s was not exactly the same). Your analysis on why the illustrated experiment would not work is spot on, and is exactly why the BBC and Mythbusters experiments were successful.

    REPLY: Thanks most sincerely, but please let me point out the CO2 was not pumped in continuously. If you’ll watch closely in the video, the actor gives the valve on the CO2 tank a twist one way, then back. It is very brief. That’s an action I know from working with the inline valve myself that I know will give a burst of CO2, but not continuous flow. – Anthony

  195. Forget about commenting on Media Matters.

    They have shut down comments on the post slamming Anthony’s demonstration. Probably a good thing. Think of the damage to the self-esteem of all those original commentors who are so obviously better educated, more informed and without doubt possessing a greater degree of forward, progessive thinking capacity than anyone here.

  196. It’s telling that the level of trolling here is low.

    I’ve never seen any “basic experiment” that shows the effect of CO2 as GHG in the atmosphere. I alway felt that IPCC should have been presenting it, in checkable form, in their Climate Science 101 if it was real. The fact that “real scientist” Bill Nye went along with this now-proven fraud is all the more evidence that no such “basic experiment” exists – surely he would have known about it….

    Bill…. Bill…. are you there Bill?

    We still have the problem of a massive collapse of basic scientific literacy, I believe, compounded by teaching that is both erroneous and fails to teach “Nullius In Verba” so how can we help establish scientific remedial education……………….. what could WUWT and readers do? Anthony you know what awe I have for the quantity and quality of your work. Now what can us grandparents generation leave as real useful legacy for our grandchildren in this respect?

    (bangs drum again) an introduction-to-science-especially-climate-science wiki?

  197. “Ray says:
    October 19, 2011 at 9:59 am

    Now, instead of using two of everything, you should repeat the experiment with only using only one and the same of everything, without moving anything else than the air inside the jar. The differences in the jars could be enough to show the difference you measured. In any case, it is really far fromt he 2F.”

    Agreed, however, let us remember that Anthony is trying to prove that AL Gore is a FRAUD nothing more and nothing less.

    In the bigger picture/debate (beyond reproducing a high school experiment):

    It is actually up to WARMISTAS to PROVE conclusively that man-made Global Warming is REAL and SIGNIFICANT. (They have COMPLETELY FAILED to do this despite all the BLUSTER)

    It is NOT up to skeptics to prove conclusively that man-made CO2 isn’t a threat (i.e. to prove a negative)!!!!!!! (This is the unscientific argument that the Warmistas use….they say to the skeptics you cannot prove we’re wrong! Like the Dawkins Teapot – it is impossible to prove conclusively to everyone, beyond any doubt, that there is NOT a small teapot orbiting the earth.)

  198. Robert of Ottawa says:

    October 19, 2011 at 8:35 am
    Uh-ho … CO2 produces cooling :-)

    So, once the Warmistas digest this inconvenient truth, will they opt for a policy of CO2 reduction to prevent (what they should recognize by deductive reasoning might be) inception of the next Ice Age or will they opt for a policy of CO2 increase to counter (what they claim is) a warming world? ‘Tis certainly a moral dilemma they face.

    (On the other hand, they could take the moral high ground and just ban the CO2 bottle experiment altogether as a tool used by a bunch of deniers with an ideological, anti-science agenda.)

  199. Whether it’s simple physics, physics 101, or high school physics, being able to perform and understand either Al Gore’s original experiment or Anthony’s attempt at replication is obviously several levels above Al Gore’s ability to comprehend.

  200. Kudos for your experiments, Anthony. Gore and company have only themselves to blame for being seen as hypocrites.

  201. gnomish says:
    October 19, 2011 at 9:42 am

    Anthony- if you repeated the experiment with a cup of water in each jar, you’d shut down the whole climate choir!

    As a point of accuracy, use a flat plate with water that covers 70% of the jar’s bottom surface.

  202. There is no reason to continue trying to improve the results from Anthony’s demonstration. Going in using IR lamps and glass jars it was going to fail. Providing better control will not disprove AGW. The only purpose (and result) is to show Gore’s experiment was a fraud. DONE. Making improvements to Gore’s fraud will never turn his sow’s ear into a silk purse.

    There is also not enough info to replicate Mythbusters ‘experiment’. Without knowing the gas concentrations its even impossible to judge the implications of what they are demonstrating. They should have changed their shirts to “psuedo-science at work.”

  203. Well done Anthony, I love to see your tenacity.

    Of course your ‘experimen’ doesn’t really have anything to say about the Earth’s ‘greenhouse effect’ but it does say a lot about the honesty, morality and ethics of said Al Gore!

    I would like that other tenacious warrior Nick Stockes to come on to the thread and defend Al Gore’s behaviour and tactics in this matter.

    Alan

  204. Ralph says:
    October 19, 2011 at 8:44 am
    “Dear Anthony,

    Could you run again, with intense visible light shining through the glass onto a black surface, so that the infared is produced inside the jar. It would be more representative of the Earth, if not of Gore’s version.”

    Not really representative of the Earth; the “outgoing” IR would again be absorbed completely by the glass, warming the air inside the jar by contact. Whether CO2 is in the air mix is not important; the average length of way to the next photon absorption under 390 ppm concentration should be on the order of 20m. Even if CO2 in the jar would absorb IR photons from the black surface, it would only re-emit them (just as Steve Mosher says above) and they would again be absorbed by the glass.

  205. R. Gates says:
    October 19, 2011 at 10:31 am


    … and the CO2 was being pumped in continuously.

    That would have eventually caused ice to form on the sides of the containers and would have badly skewed any sensitivity in temperatures they were looking for. (Take a can of liquid air used for cleaning electronic equipment and blow it on your other hand and see how long that “experiement” lasts.)

    (Warning, do not try this at home unless you can dial medical help with the other hand.)

  206. Inspiring dedication and thoroughness Anthony. Thank you!

    “The deniers claim that it’s some kind of hoax and that the global scientific community is lying to people,”- Gore.

    It defies my common sense to make such claims and then fake an experimental result. I could understand (but not condone) if the original experiment was edited to make it easier to present the results to the audience. But edited to produce a result that doesn’t exist is really absurd given such grand pronouncements. The fact this experiment is a poor representation of real world is rather beside the point. What these results really show is the cognative dissonance for those involved.

    ps Dr Spencer’s “only 1 Watts per square meter” comment made me spew my coffee! Thanks for the howl.

  207. The way an actual greenhouse works is by trapping infrared radiation. Glass is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared light, as we see below.

    No it doesn’t. The idea that Greenhouses warm by trapping IR was debunked by Robert Wood nearly a hundred years ago.

    It doesn’t invalidate what you’ve done Anthony, but experimental facts are experimental facts.

  208. David Springer:

    In order to perform this properly you need to use visible light as the heat source like the Mythbusters did:

    Exactly, but for the millionth time, Anthony was repeating Gore’s experimental setup to show it doesn’t work, not trying to demonstrate whether, if properly measured, CO2 acts as an IR thermal insulator. Anthony’s results are exactly what are expected given Gore/Nye’s experimental setup. Namely, it doesn’t heat up as quickly, doesn’t get as hot in the center for the same forcing, and cools more slowly. This result follows directly from the Fourier heat equation.

    It would be nice if some of you critics (including Matt and stevo) would admit that Gore’s experiment clearly doesn’t work as advertised and the results were clearly faked to show an opposite effect as what would be really expected from that experimental setup.

    I’ve seen students get kicked out of science programs over that type of academic dishonesty.

  209. The use of Bill Nye in this fraud says more about the shabby state of American science than it does about Gore.

  210. “Good evening Mr. Watts. Please have a seat. Mr. Gore will be with you in a minute.”
    [the sound of someone lying on the ground kicking and screaming a few rooms away]
    [a muffled voice - an ensuing argument - the door slams]
    “Mr. Watts, Mr. Gore is unavailable. Perhaps another night. But thanks for coming. He really does appreciate your interest in his work.”

  211. R Gates:

    Depending on how close the heat lamp was to that tube and how big the opening was, could heated air the air leak into that opening or could heat conduct down the tube into the container

    CO2 is heavier than air, so it should pool inside of the container. When you close the container and heat it, it should act as a “well mixed gas” due to convective forcing, so that isn’t the problem here.

  212. One extra thing I would have done is swap the gases so ‘A’ gets the CO2 and ‘B’ gets air leaving everything else exactly the same. Similar results from that would then nullify all other factors like light bulb variation, glass thickness, unequal mojo, etc.

  213. Maybe your chackra is lacking compared to Gore’s. A little vaseline might help.

    I hope he doesn’t plan to replicate this experiment with methane. Just imagine….

  214. OMG! I used to be a CAGW believer. But now it’s clear to me! CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation.
    You should send this study to Nature immediately. Your results are so clear, it will upset the whole of scientific endeavour. I’m sure you’ll win a Nobel Prize!
    You’re the best, most rigorous and skeptical scientist in the world.
    I can’t believe that thousands of scientists have been led into thinking CO2 absorbed longwave radiation, when it’s so easy to disprove…

  215. The claim of the greenhouse effect isn’t that CO2 traps more heat in glass jars, but rather that it prevents more heat from escaping to space. Neither Gore’s nor the Myth Buster’s experiment prove or disprove that.

  216. Anthony,
    This comment is coming from someone who did those type of experiments for over 20 years and you did great. What non-experimentalists do not appreciate is how much different situation is when one compares 100% CO2 atmosphere with 0.04% one and using CO2 argument as the driving force for temperature increase. I think you should offer this video to BBC and challeng them to prove it wrong. If they can’t, then you should offer it to the school science teachers in USA, UK and Australia to start with.

    Darko

  217. Lucy Skywalker says:
    October 19, 2011 at 10:42 am
    It’s telling that the level of trolling here is low.

    I’ve never seen any “basic experiment” that shows the effect of CO2 as GHG in the atmosphere. I always felt that IPCC should have been presenting it, in checkable form, in their Climate Science 101 if it was real. The fact that “real scientist” Bill Nye went along with this now-proven fraud is all the more evidence that no such “basic experiment” exists – surely he would have known about it….

    ____
    Lucy, I think you are missing the point here. Anthony never doubted the greenhouse effect of CO2 in the atmosphere or that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, and their are many skeptics who don’t doubt these basic principles. What was at issue was the set up of the 101 experiment.
    There are lots of simple and complex experiments that can show both that CO2 absorbs certain frequencies of EM radiation and that it acts as a greenhouse gas. The BBC experiment is one of the simple ones, and worked for reasons the 101 did not. They only appear to be similar experiments, but Anthony did a good job of pointing out why one would fail and one would work.

  218. Only had time to read through a few replies, but I have a couple of quick thoughts:

    I also was bothred from Day 1 by the poor detail provided by Mythbusters for their experiment. But in looking at it again it dawned on me that it’s likely the two controls were the outside two boxes (I looked hard for confirmation of that but just couldn’t find it) and that the “experiements” were the two inside boxes. Given the experimental setup I think the inside boxes would each see light from two surrounding “experiments” pretty well and therefore be receiving more light than the outside boxes which were seeing light from only one other “experiment.” This might well explain the different outcomes.

    Anthony – others have already commented that the null experiment would be a useful addition. Given available time and interest, I agree. But I also think that if you take the time for the null experiment you should also replicate the final experiment with one modification. The carbin dioxide you’re adding is displacing the other IR active gas in the container: water. You should place a Petri dish in each container with 1/2″ of water in each so that when the experiments equilibrate thermally after adding the carbon dioxide you can be sure the partial pressure of water in each container is similar.

    Cheers.

  219. R. Gates said:

    They only appear to be similar experiments, but Anthony did a good job of pointing out why one would fail and one would work.

    Ok, let’s hear how Anthony pointed out why one would work. Done properly it will never “work”.

    The reason why the BBC experiment “worked” is because the Ideal Gas Law was being verified, not the greenhouse effect. Sheesh. This shouldn’t be that complicated to understand.

    The question remains. Does the “greenhouse effect” behave the same way a real glass greenhouse does? My three examples above says it does. NASA agrees:
    NASA
    The “greenhouse effect” is the warming of climate that results when the atmosphere
    traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere resemble glass in a greenhouse, allowing sunlight to pass into the “greenhouse,” but blocking Earth’s heat from escaping into space.

    http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/green.htm

    So where is the missing hot spot? Down under Trenberth’s missing heat sinking to the deep abyss of the ocean? This inconvenient missing component is a key tenet of the “greenhouse effect” AGW meme, and the whole intent of Santer et al 2008 was to show the models were correct; that the basic physics built into GCM’s match observations.

  220. Love it! Way to bust a Gorebal Warming Myth! Just like Myth Busters only without using high explosives. I would like to see how you would design this experiment to give it the best chance to succeed (ie use ir transparent jars and shortwave lamps) in an effort to replicate how the greenhouse effect actually works. Then see if you can get it to blow up!

  221. @Merrick

    If I set up and conducted an experiment like Mythbusters, I’d be escorted to the door, boxes packed. It was complete FUBAR from the start. In Anthony’s case, unless the jars were air tight or had minimal leakage, the results will repeat, or inversely correlate from jar to jar.

    Anthony did not do this, but his was to replicate the Gore fraud. Never, ever, ever is an experiment done without including a correlation run for each box compared to the other. A control is worthless if the results do not correlate between boxes. It is inconceivable Mythbusters would not know this.

  222. DR – I think your resources are flawed. A greenhouse works because the AIR is trapped, not because the HEAT is trapped. During the day the sun heats the ground, the ground heats the air, but it never gets very warm near the ground because that air is contantly being replaced with cooler air that wasn’t close to the ground and didn’t get warmed. This mixing keeps the temperature differential for air at the ground and up to a few hundred feet almost zero. The walls of the greenhouse prevent the mixing, so the air in the greenhouse warms faster and higher than surrounding air. That is not terribly similar to what CO2 in the atmosphere does.

  223. John A says:
    October 19, 2011 at 11:03 am
    The way an actual greenhouse works is by trapping infrared radiation. Glass is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared light, as we see below.

    No it doesn’t. The idea that Greenhouses warm by trapping IR was debunked by Robert Wood nearly a hundred years ago.

    It doesn’t invalidate what you’ve done Anthony, but experimental facts are experimental facts.
    ———————————————————–
    Further to John A’s point, I have a condo with a fairly long entrance (60 ft) that is all glass on one side. The walls are white and the floor is a dark wood.
    If I close the curtains the hallway stays cool. If I leave them open, the floor is much warm to the feet and the hallway is considerably hotter.
    So if I have the curtains closed, the visible light still travels through the glass and is presumably converted to IR which is then prevented from leaving back through the glass. To make things even more confusing, the area between the glass and the curtain doesn’t heat up very much. The curtains are very light in color. The windows are always closed.
    My belief is that the IR is not created until the visible light is absorbed by the dark floor but I have no idea.

  224. DR says:
    October 19, 2011 at 11:47 am
    R. Gates said:

    They only appear to be similar experiments, but Anthony did a good job of pointing out why one would fail and one would work.

    Ok, let’s hear how Anthony pointed out why one would work. Done properly it will never “work”.

    The reason why the BBC experiment “worked” is because the Ideal Gas Law was being verified, not the greenhouse effect. Sheesh. This shouldn’t be that complicated to understand.

    ______
    Did the CO2 in both the BBC experiment and the Mythbusters experiment absorb some of the IR radiation and thereby raise the temperature or not? If the IR could not get to the CO2 in the 101 experiment (becasue of the glass and the type of light used), it could not absorb the energy and alter the temperature.

    Your comment “done properly, it will never work” seems confusing. What does “properly” mean? Use a plastic container and a light that emits a broad spectrum of radiation?

  225. RGates said;
    Anthony never doubted the greenhouse effect of CO2 in the atmosphere or that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, and their are many skeptics who don’t doubt these basic principles.(sic)

    Henry@RGates

    I repeat again what I commented earlier:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/#comment-771336

    now if you have data (measurements) on all 4 variables mentioned,
    in Watts/m2 average earth surface /24hours/0.01%CO2/m3 air
    and proof that the net effect of more CO2 is warming rather than cooling,
    why not just give this to me/us?

    I have asked everyone about these data and could not get it.

    If you don’t have that data,
    then how do you or Anthony or anyone else know for sure that the net effect of more CO2 is warming rather than cooling?

  226. Orwellian: War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength

    Gorewellian: Cold is Hot; Wet is Dry; Calm is Stormy

    I believe the AGWers are feeling the heat of truth beaming onto their lies, except that they think it’s man made global warming.

  227. “4.The gases inside the jars, air and pure CO2 thus had to be heated by secondary heat emission from the glass as it was being heated. They were not absorbing infrared from the lamps, but rather heat from contact with the glass.”

    Wouldn’t this “heat” (the one absorbed from contact with the glass) also in large part be IR?

  228. Anthony; I just wanted to say what a thorough, scientifically accurate piece of research you have carried out.
    I think you should send it to a science publication to be peer reviewed and published. If they dare!

  229. One has to wonder about those people attacking Anthony over this experiment that he conducted. I realize that the results are devastating for Mr Gore and Mr Nye, however that does not change the results or make them less relevant. The original experiment as presented was obviously flawed when they used heat lamps to provide the incoming energy onto the planet in a jar. Glass reflects most IR energy, as can be seen with a FLIR camera. So the only path available for the energy to get into the jar was by absorption of heat by the glass and a combination of radiation, and conduction, mostly conduction. How could a person with training in science even read the voice over for this and not be concerned? Mr Nye certainly saw the final product, and should not have missed this fatal flaw.

    So my point is really this, how many times do you need to prove that IR radiation is reflected by glass jars? This is a well documented physical phenomenon and expertly demonstrated here in Anthony’s experiment and accompanying video. The methodology of the original Gore/Nye is fundamentally flawed, and now proven to have been “dry-labbed”. It is time to stop asking for refinements, controls, straw men, and flawed analogies. Mr Watts has shown a fundamental aspect of true science, “if you make a claim someone else better be able to reproduce it”. If you faked any portion of it you will get exposed and burned.

    Great Job!
    Nicely Done.

  230. It took me 3+ hours to observe all the experimentation and data that Anthony has provided for Al Gore’s Climate 101 experiment, And I can say without doubt that Gore’s experiment is poorly designed, it doesn’t work under exact replication and that Anthony has shown outstanding evidence of faked results in post production.
    This is a bad scientific apparatus for showing the proprieties and/or behavior of trapped gases under an energy source.

    Well done Anthony, you should label Mr. Gore’s experiment under the Climate FAIL files where it belongs.

  231. Well done Anthony.

    You’ve just saved mankind by proving that there’s no need to reduce CO2 production.

  232. That is fantastic work. Total takedown.

    It reminds me of the comment made by a CAGW supporter that, to verify the rising oceans theory, all you had to do was put ice in a full glass of water and watch as the overflow water spilled over the sides while the ice melts…except that ice takes up more space than water, so….no.

  233. Anthony,

    Thank you for replication of the Gorethon video’s purported experiment. We now have your actual experimental process with actual results; you have provided completely documented, open and transparent diclosure of your methods, process and results.

    If the Gorethon folks have aspects of their purported experiment that were not shown on the Gorethon video, then they should provide the additional documentation and evidence of their purported experiment.

    My conclusion is the Gorethon video was a PR piece with propaganda for alarming AGW by CO2 dictating a fabricated result.

    Thanks for your WUWT.

    John

  234. Some European says:
    October 19, 2011 at 11:15 am
    “OMG! I used to be a CAGW believer. But now it’s clear to me! CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation.[...]”

    SomeEuropean, do you think there was IR in the glass jars? You didn’t pay attention.

  235. OUTSTANDING!!!! Great work Anthony! I would like to see the same experiment done with full spectrum radiation (Solar radiation) in plexiglass containers with container A at 200 ppm CO2 (pre-industrial revolution), container B at 400 ppm CO2 (current concentration), and container C at 800 ppm CO2 (what the “believers” call doomsday).

    Again, great work and this is yet another example of why I love wattsupwiththat.com

    Ryan

  236. Some European says (October 19, 2011 at 11:15 am): “I can’t believe that thousands of scientists have been led into thinking CO2 absorbed longwave radiation, when it’s so easy to disprove…”

    I assume the “/sarc” tag was left off this comment by mistake. But on the off-chance it wasn’t:

    Anthony explicitly confirmed that CO2 absorbs IR by using a device that measures CO2 by its–surprise!–IR absorption. All he did was demonstrate–again–that the “experiment” in Al Gore’s presentation was faked, revealing Al Gore as (a) a fraud, or (b) unable or unwilling to check his “facts”. In either case, he obviously can’t be trusted. That’s not news to regular WUWT readers, but not everyone has gotten the memo…yet.

  237. Overall, well done. Your work is MUCH more convincing than the original video from Gore et. al.

    A few specific comments/suggestions to Anthony and others.
    1) FLIR cameras like that typically pick up ~ 8-15 um. The video of the cookie jar blocking the IR from the warm water shows that the cookie jar blocks these wavelengths. However, the IR from the heat lamp will be almost exclusively shorter wavelengths ( ~ 0.7 – 7 um). The experiment does nothing to show that the IR from the heat lamp would be absorbed by the glass jars.

    In fact most glass transmits IR up to a few um, but absorbs beyond a few um. http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~mfs4n/ir/glass.jpg So the IR from the heat lamp almost certainly DOES get into the jars. However, these wavelengths that do get in (up to a few microns) are not the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs, so that IR would not particularly warm the CO2 anyway.

    2) As a couple people noted, it would be better to switch around the experiment a bit to eliminate “confounding factors”. For instance, if CO2 is always on the right, and Jar B is always on the right, and thermometer B is always on the right, then the observed differences can just as logically be attributed to any of these three factors. Mixing up the jars, thermometers, and gases would greatly help in attributing the changes in temperature to one specific cause.

    3) No matter how thoroughly this particular experiment is debunked, the original experiment does not really show the GHE as applied to the earth and its atmosphere. The bigger fraud is claiming that this experiment does indeed demonstrate the “greenhouse effect” when in fact, even if done right, this experiment is really not that convincing.

  238. Having thought about this a little, I began wondering what level of controls can be placed over apparently fraudulent video such as these.

    In New Zealand, we have the Broadcasting Standards Authority – a watchdog for TV and Radio.

    I wrote and asked if they had powers over other “Broadcasts” such as YouTube

    Their response is below:

    Dear Andy

    Thank you for your email.

    Under the current legislation, the BSA does not have jurisdiction over internet content that is played on demand, like You Tube (as opposed to being streamed live). For the moment, only content that is streamed live is considered a “broadcast” for the purposes of the Broadcasting Act.

    However, the Act is currently under review to address exactly these types of issues.

    Regards

    BSA Complaints

  239. I have not read all the comments, so maybe this has been mentioned…

    An observation:
    The duplicated thermometer shown on the green background is not the same kind of thermometer in the glass jars. The thermometers in the glass jars have more hash marks below the 96 degree mark than the ones on the green background. The thermometers you purchased are the same as the green backround thermometers.

  240. someone far up the thread commented that a little cookie jar can’t be compared to the depth of the atmosphere. Based upon my back-of-the-envelope calculation, a 1 ft. cookie jar with pure CO2 is equivalent to over 2,000 ft of atmosphere (from the ground up) containing 390 ppm of CO2.

  241. AndiC says:
    October 19, 2011 at 1:05 pm
    Having thought about this a little, I began wondering what level of controls can be placed over apparently fraudulent video such as these.

    AndiC personally I have no desire for any branch, sector, arm, office, etc. of any government to have any control, say, opinion, review, etc in a free society of decideing maybe fraud on youtube. It is a nose under the tent we don’t need. Anthony demonstrated we don’t need no stinking government help to show fraud. Freemen doing things freely is better.

  242. Tom L’s question about heat capacity seems important:

    What about the heat capacities of air vs. CO2? CO2 has a lower heat capacity than air, so if I remember my P-chem correctly, the same heat addition should cause the temperature of CO2 to rise more than the temperature of air.

    I found a list of heat capacities for different gases here:

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/spesific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html

    CO2 does indeed have a lower heat capacity than air (0.844 vs 1.01), but heat capacity is per kilogram of gas and CO2 is also denser than air. According to this page, CO2 is about 50% denser:

    http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/123Adensitygas.html

    Thus the heat capacity of a given volume of CO2 is actually substantially higher than for the same volume of air (1.5 x .844 = about 1.3). Volume of air is constant in these greenhouse gas container experiments, so there is actually more heat trapping going on in the CO2 containers than simple temperature comparison shows. For instance, if the temperature of the CO2 container goes up just a little less than the temperature of the air container, its heat content is actually going up more, so the simple temperature measurement is not just quantitatively misleading but is qualitatively misleading in this case.

    In the Mythbusters experiment, if they were using pure CO2, then their finding that temperature went up 1 degree more in the CO2 chamber actually understates the excess heat content. To be accurate, it is 1 degree more temperature increase over a heat capacity that is 1.3 times higher.

    So heat capacity is an important factor in these experiments, but unless I am missing something, it does not vitiate any greenhouse heat-trapping confirmation that such experiments happen to find.

  243. AndiC spake, saying thusly:
    Having thought about this a little, I began wondering what level of controls
    can be placed over apparently fraudulent video such as these.
    and went on to speak of regulation-as-cure-or-preventative.

    There are some of us who believe that the best cures and preventatives involve the existence of an alert, informed, engaged populace with minimal government (available for purchase) interference and intervention.

    Anything else must necessarily lead to what we have in this increasingly regulated (and out of control) environment.

    We need focus on our responsibilities, and stop looking to government to provide our rights. (See the Declaration of Independence for a discussion better than I can provide of the sources of rights.

  244. Almost 100% proof (like Charlie Sheen’s breath) if anybody still needed it, that Al Gore cannot be trusted to present the case for AGW in an honest manner. I guess the ‘problem’ is that it’s very difficult to actually do so, given the lack of material with which to work.

    Anthony, if you do manage to find the time to run another 30 mins with the CO2 in Jar A it’ll be absolutely rock-solid.

    The fact that anybody still holds Gore up as any sort of leader is laughable. I suppose the real coup de grace of awarding the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize to Muammar Gaddafi was a missed opportunity.

  245. While you guys are trying to do some science here Gavin Schmidt is celebrating a New Award from the American Geophysical Union Recognizes Excellence in Climate Communications. It comes with $25,000 prize. Nice response to the questions regarding Gavin’s communications during his taxpayers funded working hours.

  246. Carrick says:
    October 19, 2011 at 11:04 am

    David Springer: In order to perform this properly you need to use visible light as the heat source like the Mythbusters did:

    Exactly, but for the millionth time, Anthony was repeating Gore’s experimental setup to show it doesn’t work, not trying to demonstrate whether, if properly measured, CO2 acts as an IR thermal insulator. Anthony’s results are exactly what are expected given Gore/Nye’s experimental setup. Namely, it doesn’t heat up as quickly, doesn’t get as hot in the center for the same forcing, and cools more slowly. This result follows directly from the Fourier heat equation.

    It would be nice if some of you critics (including Matt and stevo) would admit that Gore’s experiment clearly doesn’t work as advertised and the results were clearly faked to show an opposite effect as what would be really expected from that experimental setup.

    And I wish you would read more carefully. The comment of mine to which refer clearly states in the first sentence of the second paragraph:

    “Gore’s experiment however is an outright fraud. He didn’t actually perform it and the results he claims are not replicable.”

    What part of that don’t you understand?

  247. Jason Calley says:
    October 19, 2011 at 9:09 am

    Bill Nye is a person who has achieved success and fame in his field, that of playing make-believe as a tool for illustrating middle school level science. It is sad that he thinks his success as a pedagogue qualifies him to preach to real scientists.

    Nye has become a bigshot on CSICOP, which is a rabid enforcer of certified/establishment science.

  248. I’m trying to work my way through the comments, and while I too have I-wish-Anthony-hads too,I wish the critics would note that it looked like the attempt to accept the Gore video’s invitation and replicate the experiment.

    Anthony did the best he could (given the AGW standards for experimental methods and data disclosures) to reproduce the experimental results.

    He was not able to do that. In my poorly trained opinion, that is sufficient to falsify the hypothesis.

  249. brilliant..by the way you demonstrate that the temperature given any thermometer of any station data is …something in degree …but temperature of air…except if temperature of the shed is supposed to be equal to temperature of air….

  250. Now stepping away from Anthony’s experiment exposing Gorethon.

    We see more and more that Gorethon is not doing well in its alarming tone and with its hurry up to do something messages.

    There is a reasonable basis to not hurry to do a climate assessment in the current problematic IPCC way with its non-transparent, activist dominated, procedurally non-compliant and non-QA’ed processes. We need to slowdown the IPCC with a 100% visibility mandate; viewing in situ, in process and in real time all IPCC processes (including predecisional processes). Postponing AR5 now is the only reasonable conclusion that seems logical to me.

    I say there is no reasonable basis to hurry because by looking into the broader AGW by CO2 historical overview, it is interesting to note that even to this day, +25 years after IPCC assessment began, there is not even close to any reasonable certainty of significant warming by the CO2 atmospheric effect due to fossil fuel burning. The lack of significance shows itself by two prongs of behavior by the earth’s atmospheric system: 1) other climate factors vie for dominance for the past +100 years of the modern instrumental record, ~30 years of the satellite record and the paleo/geologic record; 2) paucity of evidence of significant climate system positive feedback and paucity of evidence of climate system instability in the earth’s geological record and in the modern and instrumental records.

    Sure it would add costs to do what I suggest, but it seems obvious one can save more than enough costs of online meetings (with public access to them) instead of the frequent closed meetings in exotic faraway places.

    John

  251. Well I haven’t read but a few of the responses yet Anthony; but I would make the observation, that it would seem that nuclear weapons, are quite unnecessary.

    You seem to have dispatched the enemy, with little more than a juggled camera, and some dimestore bric-a-brac.

    Very nice work Anthony; yes anybody should have been able to deduce that the glass jars would stop the IR in its tracks, and simply conduction/convection “heat” transfe raffects the thermometerswere you to invest more time on this, switching the jars under the heat lamps just to show no real change from that would be in order.

    I had somewhat disconnected from the story, actually long before the Gore blimeys put on their edited scam.

    They started out telling us how much “heat” from the sun gets absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere thereby warming the atmosphere. They don’t go into the surface emission LWIR until later.
    Hence they start out by admitting that CO2 is a negative feedback effect, in that MORE CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs MORE solar energy and heats the atmosphere MORE, while blocking that absorbed solar energy from reaching the surface where it can be stored in ocean and rocks. The warmer atmosphere in turn rises to convect that energy to higher altitudes and eventual loss to space, while the LWIR re-radiation from that WARMER atmosphere is isotropic, so only half of it proceeds down towoards the ground; the rest is lost to space, which results in a cooler surface.

    So their own preamble describes processes which can ONLY result in a cooler surface; NEVER a warmer surface.

    Well I figured that your kitchen lab replication was going to show their purported experiment was a dud, Anthony; I didn’t expect to see fairly clear evidence for a completely opposite result.
    Perhaps a little A-B switching, such as of the “heat” lamps, also switch the gas mixtures in the two jars; well switch the jars; you know what I mean.

    This one is almost bettert ahn the Weber Grill census , Anthony; because this labels a Nationally publicised demosntration as being a total and deliberate fraud.

    For laughs try replacing the “heat” lamps with a couple of (identical) 16 ounce bottles of drinking water to simulate a true LWIR source emitting 400 W/m^2 at around 300 K, giving an LWIR spectrum peaking at around 10 microns, just like planet earth does (according to Dr Trenberth..

    Just try shoving ANY of theat real LWIR, through those glass jars.

    A grand slam home run, on this one Anthony.

  252. Good work, but this is wrong:

    “The way an actual greenhouse works is by trapping infrared radiation.”

    As proved by Wood long, long ago.

    Apologies if someone else already pointed this out. Don’t have time to read 300 comments!

  253. Thank you for your work here Anthony. You are truly one in a million and as such have attracted other one in a millionaires to you I.E. Willis, keep up the great work and never let those in the AGW apologist camp get you down.

  254. John Whitman says:
    October 19, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    Very, very well said. The mantra is “Postponing AR5 is the only reasonable thing to do.”

  255. Obviously the test was faked in the Gore video. The thing that I find interesting is that the humidity of the air jar and CO2 jar were so close and that even though the air jar had less humidity it still outpaced the humid CO2 in warming.

    I suppose if you ran the 30 minute cycle repeatedly the CO2 car would eventually get warmer since it would be shedding heat slower than the air jar.

  256. We used to have a guy in the UK called Tommy Cooper who could have helped Al with his bottle trick. Tommy is really missed.

  257. @ Theo Goodwin:

    “You cite theory which, according to you, requires that the Gore experiment must work. No instinct for the empirical. Good Warmista.”

    Nope. I fully concede that it is possible that the Gore experiment is flawed. Those are your words. I am merely stating that I trust the thoroughly established basic thermodynamics of CO2, and that a well-concieved experiment will demonstrate a temperature effect consistent with this classical theory. There is not a single skeptical scientists (Lindzen,Spencer, Christy, etc etc) who would question this point or the basic experiments by guys like Arrhenius, Callendar, and Tyndal. And, of course there is a century of precision spectroscopy and molecular physics building on their work! I have explicitly heard Richard Lindzen correct misguided folks on the fact that CO2 does absorb and re-radiate infrared in a calculable way. Does that make him a “Warmista” too?

    There is a certain point, where people on this blog are calling into question things that are so mind-bogglingly basic and well-established that they need not be argued. Let’s focus the discussion on the real points of scientific disagreement and not go back to square one on fundamental, repeatably tested principals. I say *please* focus the debate.

    If I had all the time in the world. I could try to reproduce every classical experiment ever conducted. That would last a life-time. If, as you suggest, I should trust nothing at all from the entire corpus of basic physics where do I draw the line?

    Anthony claims that this whole effort was to prove that Gore’s show presented an ill conceived, staged experiment. Fine. But, my challenge to Anthony is that an unintended(?) consequence of this article is that it has confused a lot of folks who don’t understand the underlying science. Anthony has conceded that he has made no claims to contradict the thermodynamics of CO2. He is merely demonstrating that Gore’s experiment was lights and magic. But, if he does indeed acknowledge that the basic thermodynamics of CO2 is settled and that a good experiment is possible to construct, I would (as a physicist) appreciate him articulating that clearly. So, Anthony, help me out here :).

  258. “”””” jamie says:

    October 19, 2011 at 2:44 am

    Has this experment ever been done using either something that mimics natural sunlight? Or even using sunlight itself?

    Surely that would be the best way to test the “simple high school pysics”? “””””

    Jamie, you don’t understand the intent of the experiment; which is to prove that long wave infra-red radiation in the 13.5 to 16.5 wavelength range, that is emitted from the surface of the earth at a mean temperature of 288 K and is absorbed by atmospheric CO2 at 390 ppm abundance, results in further warming of the surface, over and above the surface heating that is caused by the sun.

    So “sunlight” is exactly the wrong thing to use in the experiment, because it is at wavelenghts only 1/20th of those emitted by the earth surface. An ordinary lightbulb at say 3,000 K emits about four million Watts per square meter (4,000,000W/m^2) or 10,000 times the radiant emittance of the earth surface (at 300K) and at 1/10th of the wavelenght, where the absorbtive effects of CO2 are quite different from what they are at 10 microns.

    Also CO2 absorbing ANY sunlight (which it does) results in a COOLINGof the surface, not a heating.

    A room temperature bottle of water is the appropriate source for the correct LWIR spectrum emitted by the earth surface (average); NOT a “heat” lamp.

  259. switch bottles and lamps in every possible combination just to be sure. There is no guarantee that each lamp puts out the same power. Or did you already say you did that?

  260. nye needs to own this. gore does not care about the truth. if he admits the science is faked he is done. he has been fine with arguing by assertion for his entire career and is not about to change. nye purports to have some type of science credentials. he needs to be asked about the science in the experiment and his role in the experiment. nye needs to be forced to account for his involvement and in the record.

  261. Matt says:
    October 19, 2011 at 7:36 am
    Anthony,

    In short, is your point to prove that CO2 should not have a warming effect? Or is it to prove that you personally cannot reproduce this century-old science?

    If the effect is real and testable, than no amount of camera angles in the Gore video can change that point.

    REPLY: Neither, my point is that Gore’s experiment doesn’t work as advertised, and they faked results in post production. – Anthony

    Exactly, and I don’t believe either Anthony or other posters here can repeat that too many times.

    Gore/Nye’s “simple lab experiment” – don’t forget that at about the 45 second mark of Gore/Nye’s video you hear “if you want, you can replicate this effect yourself in this simple lab experiment…”.

    No Al, no Bill – you can not.

    The “simple lab experiment” you show will not give the results you claim.

    R. Gates says, in this thread:

    R. Gates says:
    October 19, 2011 at 10:31 am
    This was an excellent job Anthony. I commend your diligence in carrying this out, and I agree with your final analysis. Of course, none of this has anything to do with actual climate science, but merely shows that the Producer of the Gore 101 video was more interested in the flash rather than real science. I do actually doubt whether they ever even attempted to run the experiment themselves, and were more interested on what looked good on video rather than what worked.

    Yep, Gore is “more interested in the flash rather than real science”. I suspect you won’t get much argument here on that one.

    The problem is, Gore’s “real science” is misrepresentation and deception”, in his movie, this video, and public appearances where he claims the earth’s core is millions of degrees hot.

    Once again – Gore FAIL. Only this time, he also brings down Bill Nye with his science lie.

  262. To paraphrase the late Johnny Cochran, “If the experiment don’t fit, then the theory is sh*t.”

  263. Matt,

    I’ve never seen Anthony claim that there is no CO2 effect. My own often stated view is that a 2xCO2 rise will increase temperature by ≈1°C, ±0.5°C.

    That said, the net effect of a rise in CO2 is harmless and beneficial. Harmless, because there is no evidence of any global harm from the rise in that tiny trace gas. And beneficial, because there is ample evidence of increased agricultural production due directly to the rise in CO2.

    Demonizing “carbon” is emotion-based nonsense, not science. Rather than scolding Anthony for not doing the experiment you would like done, why not do it yourself, and post your findings here? Anthony simply accepted Gore’s challenge and replicated the experiment, which proved that Gore was being dishonest as usual.

  264. Blimey. All Watts did was prove that Gore’s video is a fake.
    Nowhere has he deneid that CO2 is one of the gasses that stops the Earth being an iceball in space.

  265. I am not surprised that Gore’s demonstration does not work. I am also disappointed to find that Mythbusters tried a similar experiment, as I quite like their work, though only as entertainment.

    You all need to be careful however that you do not generate a counter myth, as I notice several posts stating that this disproves the atmospheric greenhouse effect, or words to that effect. As pointed out by Steven Mosher (Oct19 4.52am), to test the atmospheric GHE properly you need a container open to a vacuum at the top, something you cannot achieve with a closed jar in the lab. Anthony clearly states that the intention is to show that the Gore experiment was faked, but perhaps to avoid the generation of new myths, an addendum show be provided stating how the GHE actually works?

  266. SST’s are coldest on record at the moment does not augur well for global temps 2011-2012 for the AGW crowd!!! see AMSU sea surface

  267. Jimmi-the-dalek, I think you will find that the Gore camp will fight this exposure of their 101 fabrication, by spinning that Anthony is a CO2 heats the Earth denier.

  268. Kudos to Anthony, but a bit of kudos to R Gates as well. Bear in mind that R Gates’ initial comment on this thread began “This was an excellent job Anthony. I commend your diligence in carrying this out, and I agree with your final analysis.” and ended “But this matters not…as in the end, I fully agree that I would have lost the bet on whether the experiment as illustrated in the 101 video would have worked or not (even though your’s was not exactly the same). Your analysis on why the illustrated experiment would not work is spot on, and is exactly why the BBC and Mythbusters experiments were successful.“.

    BTW, I’m not saying that there’s nothing to disagree with in R Gates’ comments (or with Anthony’s experiments for that matter), but I think it reasonable to recognise that R Gates’ comments have been thoughtful and positive – something to be welcomed in this highly polarised debate.

  269. BTW as an aside I reckon R gates and even Trenberth will soon be unofficial skeptics as they come to realize that nothing close to CO2 = warming is happening or likely to occur just to remain credible and obtain funds for climate research as the AGW becomes more and more fringe like loony science… LOL

  270. Well, Anthony – you have officially arrived. Media Blathers has (yet again) wasted time trying to ‘prove’ anyone who is actually curious about the science or anything other than left wing propaganda, is ‘stoopid’.

    But like the MMGW crowd, they have a great source of funding – George Soros.

  271. Joe Public says:
    October 19, 2011 at 12:51 pm
    Well done Anthony.

    You’ve just saved mankind by proving that there’s no need to reduce CO2 production.

    _____

    Of course Anthony’s experiment did nothing of the sort, nor was it intended to. Anthony proved the Gore 101 “experiment” was never actually run, and had it been, would not have succeeded as shown on the video.

    REPLY:
    On this we agree. No broader take away (other than the experiment was faked and fails) was intended, expressed or implied – Anthony

  272. Clearly you couldn’t get it to work because you’re not a high school student! Try the experiment with a high school student! :-)

  273. Andrew says:
    October 19, 2011 at 3:38 pm
    BTW as an aside I reckon R gates and even Trenberth will soon be unofficial skeptics as they come to realize that nothing close to CO2 = warming is happening or likely to occur just to remain credible and obtain funds for climate research as the AGW becomes more and more fringe like loony science… LOL

    ______
    Fortunately, I think the world is a bit more complicated than that. In the several years I’ve posted here, I’ve always maintained I had a skeptical side, and even have tried to quantify it in terms of some percentage related to AGW specifically (75% certain that some level of AGW is happening, 25% skeptical). But overall, as a scientifically minded person, I am 100% skeptic about most matters (do neutrinos really travel faster than light? for example), and want to have proof shown to me with the theory behind it. Where the watershed comes is when one becomes a C-AGW “believer”, as that does, for some, approach a bit of a faith-based endeavor. But do I think that the increases in CO2 in the atmosphere that humans have caused over the past few hundred years have helped to warm the planet? Yes, I’m 75% certain they have…

  274. Firstly, I am of the mind that AGW/Climate Change is non-sense on stilts. Bravo to you Mr. Watts for trying to make sense of Al Gore’s dog’s breakfast of an experiment. I am a chemist and I believe that if this experiment were set up properly with tightly controlled apparati and procedures the results would be closer to a nil diference than the insignificant temperature difference you got. One point that the temperature could have varied for the CO2 towards the lower number would be in the conversion of the CO2 gas’ pressure from heat to work when released from it’s canister and into the cookie jar.

    When they made the observtion “Love is Like Oxygen”, the Glam Rock group Sweet were more scientific than Al Gore on this one.

  275. What I find amusing is that the few real trolls on this thread, such as those that say things like “OMG! I used to be a CAGW believer. But now it’s clear to me! CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation” really think Anthony is trying, in some way, to disprove AGW. It is this kind of inability shown by AGW trolls to figure out what anyone is talking about that keeps me confident about which “side” thinks more clearly.

    Thank you, trolls. Keep it coming!

    Anthony, if this catches any media attention, just be prepared to field the question about whether this disproves AGW theory, ’cause that’s what you’re going to get. Keep the focus on issues like the fact that glass is resistant to IR, with the implication that Gore and his team, who claim scientific competence, do not understand high-school physics and are prepared to fake the results when their own experiment doesn’t work.

    The real irony here is that the video is meant to show that C02 is a greenhouse gas, and anyone who disagrees is scientifically illiterate. That the experiment as shown cannot work is amusing, but that’s only half the irony. The other half is that that’s a strawman from the beginning, since most of us believe that C02 is a greenhouse gas. The debate is elsewhere, about what effect occurs when a miniscule amount of a trace greenhouse gas is added to the atmosphere.

  276. @Matt

    I have a challenge to you, can you get past the knee jerk reaction of supporting a cause? If someone fornicates an experiment to get a desired social response, is that wrong? Company A wants to get a new drug approved, so, their lab fakes the experiment and the results. They drug is approved and people suffer. Is that not wrong? A News Organization B rigs a demonstration to support their premise that something is dangerous when it is not, just for effect. Is that not wrong as well? Why should I trust any information from these people again? The answer is I will not. It is not Mr Watts’s responsibility to support the premise of these charlatans, they have damaged themselves.

    Does CO2 have an affect on the atmosphere? Yes it does. Does it control the entire climate system as a prime first order drive?, So far as I have seen in the data, no. To me this experiment is much the same as the conjecture of how many Angels can sit on the head of a pin. What was tested did not represent reality, and the results were just as false as the Angels answer. The test was false, the premise laughable, and the results a pathetic attempt of cheating at a science fair project and trying to win first prize.

  277. R. Gates says:
    October 19, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    “But do I think that the increases in CO2 in the atmosphere that humans have caused over the past few hundred years have helped to warm the planet? Yes, I’m 75% certain they have…”

    But what is your % certainty about what, of the latter years, the planet has done with that warmth?

  278. Two things Anthony’s experiment (and others) do not take into account.

    1) Nightfall
    2) Winter

    If the claim is that CO2 slows down cooling … does it slow it down enough to make up for the absence of sunshine at night and in winter when there is no visible light that turns into outgoing thermal radiation.

    Maybe it would get warmer while the “sun” is shining on a properly constructed version of this experiment, but what happens when the “sun” is turned off for 8 to 16 hours a day?

  279. R Gates
    Thanks for response. No I don’t doubt that CO2 has an effect as a GHG. I didn’t intend implying more than I said. I just miss that proof-laden experiment, that’s all.

  280. Matt says:
    October 19, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    I am merely stating that I trust the thoroughly established basic thermodynamics of CO2, and that a well-concieved [sic] experiment will demonstrate a temperature effect consistent with this classical theory.

    But apparently you are perfectly willing to overlook a large part of the thoroughly established basic thermodynamics of H20.

  281. “Two things Anthony’s experiment”? When did it become Anthony’s experiment.

    If there be an Anthony’s experiment here it is the demonstration of just how ready the Gore clacque is to try and drown truth in a sea of noise.

  282. Anthony, well done, BUT;

    1) You need to repeat using jar A with CO2, jar B with Air (leaving everything else unchanged). Not only do the variations in the thickness of the glass jars affect the result but lamps are notoriously variable in terms of output. We use lamps of high quality and find the output (light level and spectrum) can vary by up to +/- 10% between different lamps from the same manufacturing lot. This is when they are operated at the same DC current.

    2) The thermal property you want to discuss is the “thermal diffusivity” of the gases not the thermal conductivity. Thermal diffusivity is essentially the speed of heat through a material. It considers BOTH the thermal conductivity and thermal capacity of a material. Many plastics have thermal capacities close to metals but due to their low thermal conductivity have a low speed of heat.

    3) A greenhouse is NOT warmer inside (relative to the outside surroundings) because it “traps” IR radiation. This MYTH has been disproven over a century ago by R.W. Woods and more recently by Dr. Nashle. A greenhouse CONCENTRATES heat inside thusly producing a warmer interior. It is worth noting that the heat that is concentrated inside the greenhouse is denied to the outside surroundings where it would otherwise flow via convection.

    4) The best explaniation of the “GHE” is that it changes the speed at which heat flows through the atmosphere. This is exactly what the pink insulation in the walls of your house accomplishes. Unfortunately the “GHE” is only capable of slowing the flow of heat by a few hundred milliseconds at most. Since there are approximately 86 million milliseconds in a day the “GHE” does not slow any heat enough so that some is “leftover” at the end of each day to cause a “higher equilibrium” temperature to exist.

    5) The “GHE” only changes the “response” / “delay” / “lag” time of the gases in the atmosphere and it has NOTHING to do with the average temperature of the Earth. The average temperature of the Earth is determined primarily by the MASSIVE thermal capacity of the Oceans.

    Cheers, Kevin.

  283. I like it better when the moderators are all asleep–the true to false ratio goes up remarkably.

    [REPLY: the moderators NEVER sleep. We are all here. All the time. -REP]

  284. “”””” Matt says:
    October 19, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    I am merely stating that I trust the thoroughly established basic thermodynamics of CO2, and that a well-concieved [sic] experiment will demonstrate a temperature effect consistent with this classical theory. “””””

    Well Matt, I believe you will find that there are a good number of us, who have no reservations at all about the “thermodynamics of CO2.” It is well established that CO2 absorbs long wave infra-red radiation in the wavelength range from about 13.5 to 16.5 microns wavelength at ordinary atmospheric conditions through what is generally known as the degenerate bending mode of the CO2 molecule. Degenerate in that there are two different modes of vibration at the same wavelength.
    a “well concEIved” (what’s sic about it?) experiment is duck soup. You need an approximately black body radiation source emitting at an effective Temperature of 288 Kelvins, which is the purported mean global surface Temperature of the earth, and therefore the source of the earth emitted long wave infra-red radiant emissions from the surface. Such a source should emit about 390-400 Watts per square metre of its surface covering the wavelength range from about 5.0 microns to about 80 microns wavelength, (98% of the total energy), with the peak at about 10 microns (10.1 for 288 K). Over that wavelength range, ordinary water (H2O has an absorption coefficient that averages around 1,000 cm^-1, and never dips below about 200 cm^-1. So as little as 1 mm of water absorbs well in excess of 99% of that entire spectral range.

    Therefore it is quite reasonable to treat an ordinary bottle of drinking water as being essentially a black body absorber over the 5 to 80 micron wavelength range; and thus a perfect source for the correct LWIR spectrum of radiation at the correct emittance level to act as a source for this well conceived test of the atmospheric CO2 warming through LWIR capture.

    Now LWIR in that spectral range, won’t penetrate into the glass bell jars such as seems to be popular for this high school physics experiment, but that isn’t a problem; simply place thw bottles of water (sealed) inside the jar so that it is in direct contact with the air samples.

    The only other thing needed is to prepare two samples of (dry) air and double the amount of CO2 in one of the samples.

    Any experimental chemist can easily show you how to fairly accurately add say 400 ppm of pure CO2 to one of two identical samples of (dry air) as well as how to dry the air in the first place.

    Now according to the IPCC, the air sample with doubled CO2 should be 1.5 deg C +/- 50% warmer than the other one, which is 1.0 to 3.0 deg C.

    Oh wait a minute, that is the climate sensitivity, so that would be the increase in mean global surface Temperature; so the atmospheric warming would have to be somewhat greater than 1 to 3 deg C.

    Well so much the better, the result will be so much easier to detect.

    That is all there is to it Matt, about as close to replicating the entire planet in microcosm as one could imagine. Well remember that this only measures the direct CO2 “forcing”, sans water feedback amplification and without the well known cloud positive feedback; so this is just the bare nuckles CO2 effect on its own without all the peripheral interference.

    So give it a whirl Matt, and see what you can find out; such a test also eliminates annoying perturbations like convection of the warmed atmosphere; in these jars, there should be little convection problems.

  285. Anthony gives Bill Nye the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t observe the actual “experiment” done by the Gore camp, and just provided a voiceover.

    While this was quite possible, after my seeing that Nye lists “Rachel Maddow” as his favorite TV show on his Facebook page, it becomes extremely doubtful that Nye was in the dark.

    Extremists tend to run in packs.

  286. Thank you Anthony for your time and money to expose Gore as a fraud. Several people want you to firm up the mechanical characteristics of your experiment. I suggest you review your conclusion about the reason why the air filled jar warmed faster and then cooled faster. I suspect that the jars were not at equilibruim. Carbon dioxide has about 20% higher heat capacity than air. Thus, with the same heat input, the air temperature will rise faster in the jar with 100% air than in the jar diluted with carbon dioxide. Likewise, the air jar will cool faster.

    Gore’s claims about how much faster the temperature will rise in the carbon dioxide jar cannot be true in the short term. The effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really cannot be proven by a simple “high school” physics experiment. Thermodynamics are required to understand what happens inside the jars. Gas diffusion is also required to set the timing for any experimentation with closed containers. Gore, for sure and perhaps Nye, may be too inexperienced in process engineering to realize that their answer could not be correct and thus had to resort to fraud to justify their dogmatic belief about what the answer should have been.

    JFD

  287. RDCII wrote;

    “The debate is elsewhere, about what effect occurs when a miniscule amount of a trace greenhouse gas is added to the atmosphere.”

    I will posit this hypothesis in response to your suggestion about the effects of adding GHGs to the
    atmosphere;

    1) Additions of GHGs are displaced by reductions in non-GHGs. After all there are only 1 million ppmv of gases in the atmosphere (by definition).

    2) Heat flows through non-GHGs at the speed of heat (aka thermal diffusivity).

    3) Heat flows through GHGs at close to the speed of light. A slight delay is added as some portion (less than 50%) makes a short side trip back towards the surface.

    4) The speed of light is SIGNIFICANTLY faster than the speed of heat.

    5) THUS; additions of GHGs to the atmosphere cause the gases in the atmosphere to warm up more quickly after an increase in energy arriving at a location in the system (i.e. sunrise or the dissipation of clouds). Alternatively, the gases in the atmosphere cool down more quickly after a decrease in energy arriving at a location in the system (i.e. sunset or the accumulation of clouds).

    6) This effect is so small that we probably cannot afford to measure it.

    7) The historical temperature databases (even after being water boarded into confessing to AGW) do not contain the necessary data (i.e. dT/dt) to confirm/refute this hypothesis.

    8) The “missing” heat is currently travelling through Space as a spherical IR wavefront that is “X + d” light years away from the surface of the Earth. “X” represents the elapsed time since the energy arrived (i.e. 100 years for sunlight from 1911) and “d” represents the slight delay from a few (maybe 10-20) side trips back towards the surface of the Earth. “d” is measured in light milliseconds (1 light millisecond =~ 917,000 feet).

    Cheers, Kevin.

  288. R. Gates;
    Well young lady, no place to hide anymore, is there?

    1. You defended Gore’s “illustration” to no end, claiming that even though the results were faked, the experiment was more or less accurate in terms of the results “illustrated”. Will you now admit that the Gore rendition was an outright fraud showing results that not only were faked, but were in fact the OPPOSITE of what doing the experiment that was illustrated would have shown?
    2. Do you continue to defend what Gore did in any way, shape, or form?
    3. If you cannot defend what Gore did, will you issue a statement clearly condemning what he did?

    Lastly, You agreed to make a wager with me in regard to the outcome of the experiment. You were so bold as to ask “how much”? When I asked if you would accept Anthony’s results, you began demanding conditions that resulted in Anthony giving you a two day time out. Afterward, you refused to respond to any of my posts. For the record, your comments above clearly show that you in fact do accept Anthony’s results. I take this as admission that I won the bet.

    As we didn’t arrive at an amount before you cut off discussion, I will now advise as to what it was that I had intended to propose as a wager. Had I lost, I would have agreed to have a t-shirt made with that admission on it and wear it.. I propose that since you admit to having lost the bet, you have a t-shirt made up that reads

    I bet on Al Gore’s science
    I lost
    Now I have to wear this t-shirt.

    Of course as proof you’ve had the t-shirt made, I will require a photo of you wearing it whilst shaking hands with Anthony Watts.

  289. A footnote to the above suggested experiment.

    The alert reader probably will catch the ; hang on there a minute; your plastic bottle probably won’t transmit the 5-80 micron LWIR radiation either; so your experiment is a dud too.

    Well not so; in fact so much the better if it doesn’t. If the LWIR does penetrate the bottle, the water will absorb it all in the first millimetre of water, so the water will be an effective BB emitter at 288K
    If the plastic bottle is opaque to such radiation, then it too would be a good near BB emitter for that same radiation. So one way or the other, the plastic bottle full of water makes a good 288K black body emitter, and the empty bottle is likely just as good. Just think of the water in it as being a deep ocean heat sink to enable the bottle to radiate profusely at 400 W/m^2, without its Temperature dropping precipitously.

    But the water bottles do need to be in the jar in contact with the air/CO2

  290. WOW Troll fest here!!!!

    The idiots seem to think that Anthony needs to improve his experiment.

    HELLO? HELLO?

    Anthony is simply showing that Al Gore is a complete and utter FRAUD, nothing more nothing less.

    If you TROLLS have something useful to add then go and do your own @#$^! experiments and be the FIRST in the entire world to PROVE CAGW.

    Don’y you TROLLS get it?

    CAGW has NOT been demonstrated experimentally and THAT IS THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH!!!

    NOBODY and I mean NOBODY has done large scale atmospheric experiments to PROVE CAGW!

    It is all still, after 30 YEARS, a speculative hypothesis….

    Trolls……get a life!

  291. “…But the water bottles do need to be in the jar in contact with the air/CO2 [sic]”

    But will it be a faithful attempt to reproduce the ten minute highscholl experiment that is the subjet here?

  292. The U.S. government’s Environmental Protection Agency
    This phenomenon is called the “greenhouse effect” because it is exactly the same principle that heats a greenhouse

    http://www.epa.gov/ne/students/pdfs/activ13.pdf

    CO2 does not heat a greenhouse and is not the cause of the greenhouse effect.

    What heats a greenhouse is the lack of convection/evaporation to carry away the heat, which results from the greenhouse itself forming a barrier to air movement.

    This is so simple to prove that it is almost ridiculous. Open a small window at the bottom and top of a greenhouse. The greenhouse effect disappears as soon as you allow the air to circulate. Go ahead pump in CO2. Makes no difference.

  293. Got this from Judith Curry’s site. Different topic but it seemed appropriate here:

    A quote from Mark Twain: ” . . . people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”

  294. rpercifield says:
    October 19, 2011 at 4:19 pm

    “Does CO2 have an affect on the atmosphere? Yes it does. Does it control the entire climate system as a prime first order drive?”
    ____
    There is lot’s of room in between those extremes, and that’s where the truth probably rests. But the most important question really is, “How sensitive is the climate to a 40% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the geologically short timespan of a few centuries?”

    ____

    davidmhoffer,

    As you can’t even get my gender correct, it completely negates any sort of obligation I would have had, even if we had come to any agreement of terms, which we never did. I’ve admitted to being wrong and given credit to Anthony for proving that the experiment as illustrated in the 101 video was completely impossible. I would even go so far as to say that some sort of correction and apology to the experiment as illustrated in the video should be issued by Gore, et. al. But as I am not a current fan of the kind of catastrophic viewpoint espoused by Mr. Gore, I have no reason to defend him, and generally could care less what he or his associates are up to.

    But, being the gentleman that I am, even though we never agreed to the exact wager or finalized the bet, I would gladly agree to an after-the-fact compromise. You pay for a T-shirt that accurately summarizes the net scientific results of Anthony’s experiment and the bet we made. I would wear it for a photo with him when we get together in November. It would read:

    Anthony Watts has proven that
    Anchor Hocking Glass blocks
    most infrared radiation.

    ________
    Green Sand says:
    October 19, 2011 at 4:19 pm
    R. Gates says:
    October 19, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    “But do I think that the increases in CO2 in the atmosphere that humans have caused over the past few hundred years have helped to warm the planet? Yes, I’m 75% certain they have…”

    But what is your % certainty about what, of the latter years, the planet has done with that warmth?
    _______
    I would suppose that some has into the deeper oceans as heat, some has gone into the latent heat of melting Greenland, Antarctica, net global glacial mass, and Arctic Sea ice reduction, and some has gone into the total enthalpy of the atmosphere and oceans. (need to consider all the forms of energy in the atmosphere and oceans, not just sensible heat). Finally, some I suppose has escaped into space. Not being a physicist or climate expert, I would be only about 50% certain of any these suppositions. Overall, the issue related to CO2 is one of climate sensitivity, and of course the role of clouds as negative or positive feedbacks is very important. I currently feel the paleoclimate data is probably the best source to what the net fast and slow feedbacks of our current and near future levels of CO2 will cause in term of warming. In looking and the nearest paleoclimate analog, we probably need to look to the mid-pliocene, around 3 million years ago. In looking at that time period, and considering all feedbacks, both fast and slow, at least 3C of warming seems very plausible for a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.

  295. Gates says:

    “In looking at that *time period, and considering all feedbacks, both fast and slow, at least 3C of warming seems very plausible for a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.”
    [*cherry-picked]

    After all this time, Gates still doesn’t understand the fact that rises in CO2 are the effect of temperature rises, not the cause:

  296. This also reminds me of the mythbusters experiment with the child and the teacher from Berkeley. I still have issues with their controls.

  297. R. Gates;
    But, being the gentleman that I am, even though we never agreed to the exact wager or finalized the bet, I would gladly agree to an after-the-fact compromise. You pay for a T-shirt that accurately summarizes the net scientific results of Anthony’s experiment and the bet we made.>>>

    You agreed to take the wager and then you welched out by refusing to discuss it further, my guess being that during your two day “time out” you realized it was a sucker bet that you could not possibly win so you just went quiet in every thread where I posed a question to you or brought the bet up. You welched, plain and simple, and no gentleman would ask the person they lost the wager with to pay for the wager. Further, you staunchly defended Al Gore, and the experiment as illustrated. Suddenly you want to distance yourself from him? He’s not in vogue anymore? You blindly argued that he was only “illustrating” the experiment and that the results were what the actual experiment would show. Now that you understand that the experiment was faked, and that it couldn’t have possibly shown the results that you were prepared to wager it showed, you don’t have the kahonies to call a spade a spade and issue the condemnation the man so richly deserves?

    R. Gates;
    As you can’t even get my gender correct, it completely negates any sort of obligation I would have had>>>

    Read the above. Given that you are clearly not a gentleman, and don’t have the kahonies to stand up and do the right thing, I’ll let others decide for themselves. FYI, it was actually a trick. Another commenter argued that you were actually a woman. I wagered that I could provoke you into declaring you were male. Thanks, I’m now up $100 on the day!

    As to getting your gender wrong negating the bet…well, there’s people who stand behind their words, and there are people who find the flimsiest of excuses for weaseling out of them. You agreed to take the wager, then tried to impose ridiculous terms and conditions, got sent for a two day time out, and when you came back, pretended like the whole thing never happened. Then trashed Gore as if you never backed him in the first place. You even trotted out that “well, I’m 25% skeptic” again, despite never having posted a single skeptic argument that I ever saw.

    So R. Gages, what will it be? Settle the bet like the gentleman you pretent to be? Or go down in the books as an Al Gore turncoat who doesn’t keep his word?

  298. RDCII says:
    October 19, 2011 at 4:09 pm
    Despite what you would like us all to believe, that is EXACTLY where the debate lies.

  299. ferd berple says:
    October 19, 2011 at 6:41 pm

    “What heats a greenhouse is the lack of convection/evaporation to carry away the heat, which results from the greenhouse itself forming a barrier to air movement.”

    I’m afraid that’s wrong. What heats a greenhouse is the sun. The glass allows the sunlight to enter but largely blocks the means by which it cools. There are four modes of heat loss: conduction, convection, evaporation, and radiation. The glass stops all of these except for conduction.

    “This is so simple to prove that it is almost ridiculous. Open a small window at the bottom and top of a greenhouse. The greenhouse effect disappears as soon as you allow the air to circulate.”

    Mirror the glass and you won’t need to open any windows because it won’t heat up in the first place.

    “Go ahead pump in CO2. Makes no difference.”

    That’s because the glass is already blocking 100% of the FIR from escaping and if it weren’t then in a normal greenhouse the humidity is very high and water vapor will be doing the heavy lifting anyhow.

  300. Oligonicella says:
    October 19, 2011 at 8:18 am

    Haven’t read all the comments, but the ‘experiment’ fails at container. Those cookie jars are what I use to steep brandies. The lids do not fit. Period. I have had *adult* Drosophila make their way inside. Gas exchange would be a breeze.

    Lab SOP requires a generous coating of petroleum or silicone based grease on loose fitting glasswear faces, to provide proper sealing. However, this experiment was reproducing Gores experiment, in order to validate it. Since Gore did not specify a seal, and the video indicated the opposite, then Anthony could not employ it. This is A. Gore’s experiment (performed by Anthony), which failed to reproduce HIS results, thereby invalidating his A. Gore’s experiment. We need to keep our eye on the ball, people. This experiment doesn’t prove anything about CO2. GK

  301. Was that “Mythbuster” video actually broadcast on TV? As a part of the Mythbuster show?

    Either way Anthony’s experiment is a refutation of the Gore-inspired experiment. The case he makes is the Gore video is a fraud … right? If so, this is perfect mythbuster material. and we should petition that program to confirm (or bust) both experiments. If you agree go here http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/mythbusters/ and click on “submit a myth”. If there is enough demand maybe they will take up the challenge.

  302. KevinK says:
    October 19, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    “The average temperature of the Earth is determined primarily by the MASSIVE thermal capacity of the Oceans.”

    BINGO! Give the man a cigar.

    Non-condensing greenhouse gases are important when the oceans are largely frozen over and thus can’t absorb energy from the sun. In that extreme case (which has happened a few times in the earth’s history) NCGHGs are the kindling that ignites the water cycle. CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere from volcanic emissions, soot collects on the snow surface, and between the two a frozen earth eventually thaws back out. One mustn’t forget that the earth and moon are made of essentially the same rocks with the same albedo so if it wasn’t for air and water the earth would be the same average temperature as the moon which is a chilly negative 23C.

  303. Anthony, you have made an utterly clinical and meticulous scientific deconstuction of Gore’s ‘high school physics’ experiment. I flang funds to the wrong destination last time (Surface Stations). Clearly for your devastatingly precise experimental demolitions of egregious ‘scientific’ chacanery we should be helping to defray your expenses. I’m going to contribute shortly.

    Although you got rid of the “Al Gore is an idiot” category (which I miss), please, please, please will you substitute some ‘truth in advertising’ and add the category ‘”Al Gore is parsimonious with the truth”. It’s not an ad hominem, just a statement of fact.

  304. R. Gates;
    In your eagerness to weasel out of the wager you made with me, you neglected to answer the direct questions that I asked of you. Somethng we gentleman would never do unless by mistake, but a scoundrel would do deliberately. I’ll not suggest which I think you are, but figured I’d post the questions again and give you another crack at them.

    1. You defended Gore’s “illustration” to no end, claiming that even though the results were faked, the experiment was more or less accurate in terms of the results “illustrated”. Will you now admit that the Gore rendition was an outright fraud showing results that not only were faked, but were in fact the OPPOSITE of what doing the experiment that was illustrated would have shown?
    2. Do you continue to defend what Gore did in any way, shape, or form?
    3. If you cannot defend what Gore did, will you issue a statement clearly condemning what he did?

  305. “Anthony Watts has proven that
    Anchor Hocking Glass blocks
    most infrared radiation.”

    A more accurate inscription would be:

    “Anthony Watts has proven that
    Al Gore is a liar and a fraud
    And davidmhoffer correctly observed that
    R Gates was dumb enough to be taken in by and defend Gore’s lies and fraud”

  306. Excellent work, Mr. Watts. The best aspect of it, IMHO, is that it dramatically furthers the increasingly recognized point that skeptics are far more knowledgeable on climate science and science in general than the warmists.

    Another point that could be made is that skeptics are more open-minded. One fun way we might drive that point home would be to have a contest for the best experiement that:
    a) DOES work,
    b) CORRECTLY demonstrates the basic “greenhouse” effect,
    c) Might conceiveably be done in a high school classroom,.

    A while ago, John Christy offered an exquisitely simple experiment that demonstrates back radiation ( a metal bar in a vacuum heated with fixed electrical power, with and without a nearby bar that is not externally heated ). I take it that experiment demostrates that if the atmosphere warms more because of CO2 the surface will cool more slowly after being heated by the sun (because of back radiation), and will therefore be warmer on average.

    So, we only have to show that when a surface is heated to a temperature higher than an adjacent body of gas, the gas will warm faster if it has 600ppm CO2 than it will with 300ppm CO2.

    Any takers?

  307. ferd burple;

    When Dave Springer responds:
    What heats a greenhouse is the sun. The glass allows the sunlight to enter but largely blocks the means by which it cools. There are four modes of heat loss: conduction, convection, evaporation, and radiation. The glass stops all of these except for conduction.>>>

    He is correct, all of those processes are blocked to one exteny or another resulting in the greenhouse becoming warmer.

    I also noticed a few people jumping on Springer’s comment that the experiment to show the actual “greenhouse effect” as it applies to global temps would have required a SW (visible light) source that was absorbed by something inside the glass jars and then re-radiated back as LW. While the purpose of the experiment Anthony did was in fact to refute Al Gore’s claim and nothing else, I think Springer and others are correct to point out how it should have been done if the “greenhouse effect” was actually going to be demonstrated.

    This is a science site. The fallacy promolgated by Gore has been exposed for what it is. But science isn’t just about demonstrating the falsity of others, it is also about demonstrating the correct approach and displaying the correct results. I think Anthony has achieve the goals he set out to achieve, and in spades. I for one would like to see the experiment done correctly as Springer suggested, for the simple reason that it would show the “greenhouse effect” as it actually exists, and further underscore just how out to lunch Gore and company are on the science the purport to “know”.

  308. R. Gates;
    “How sensitive is the climate to a 40% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the geologically short timespan of a few centuries?”>>>

    Given that we’ve had a 40% increase since 1920, and we’ve seen little change at all, it appears the answer is “very insensitive”. So why you still all in a twist about it?

  309. Ammonia chemical formula in the table should be NH3 instead of H3S. Some other chemical formulas are not correct either. Thanks for the article and your good work!

  310. Dave Springer wrote;

    “BINGO! Give the man a cigar.”

    Can I pick the brand of cigar ???

    Not that it manners to me, I just want to find the truth.

    Disclaimer; I have never received any funding from the evil “fossil fuel” industry, I’m just an engineer (BSEE 1980, MSEE 1981, MSOPTICS 1986, 20+ US Patents) that earns my pay by reconciling “observations” with “models”. Both are useful, but observations RULE outside of the climate “science” world.

    Cheers, Kevin.

  311. Ditto what KevinK said — for transient heat conduction you want to compare the thermal diffusivities of the two gases. Using the calculator at UWaterloo (http://www.mhtl.uwaterloo.ca/old/onlinetools/airprop/airprop.html), I find that at 100F the values are:

    alpha_air = 23.54E-6 m^2/s
    alpha_CO2 = 11.96E-6 m^2/s

    so the comparison seems to accord with your observation that the CO2 warms slower and cools slower. Since you are heating via contact with a warm upper plate, it seems plausible that natural convection effects are minimal.

    I would discourage calling the diffusivity “the speed of heat” — the transient heat conduction equation is a diffusion equation, not a wave equation. Interestingly, there is a scaling equation that can be exploited. If you double the linear dimension, it should take four times as long to see the same warming to occur, ceteris paribus. Might want to purchase a couple of different-size cookie jars to test this.

    BBB

  312. G. Karst says:
    October 19, 2011 at 8:34

    ” This experiment doesn’t prove anything about CO2. ”

    —–
    Nor was Anthony’s meant to. It proved only that Anchor Hocking Glass will block most infrared and thus the experiment as illustrated in the 101 video could not possibly work as shown, unless somehow heat was transmitted down the tube or through the opening in the lid as this was the only apparent difference between the 101 video and Anthony’s video. In any event it such an effect would have nothing to do with how CO2 operates in Earth’s atmosphere.

  313. Long-wave short-wave? That’s a dated theorem. Greenhouses (actual-not gases) work by blocking convection.
    I see Ferd has beat me here, so I’ll just agree. Leave it to the reader to search greenhouse convection

  314. TomT says:
    October 19, 2011 at 11:16 am

    The claim of the greenhouse effect isn’t that CO2 traps more heat in glass jars, but rather that it prevents more heat from escaping to space. Neither Gore’s nor the Myth Buster’s experiment prove or disprove that.

    Nope. Slows it down, only. It all gets out eventually, or the Earth would gradually heat up till it was as hot as the surface of the Sun.

  315. Smokey says:
    October 19, 2011 at 7:48 pm
    Gates says:

    “In looking at that *time period, and considering all feedbacks, both fast and slow, at least 3C of warming seems very plausible for a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.”
    [*cherry-picked]

    After all this time, Gates still doesn’t understand the fact that rises in CO2 are the effect of temperature rises, not the cause.
    ———
    Smokey doesn’t seem to understand the nature of positive feedbacks, nor the fact that some increases of CO2 in the atmosphere have nothing to do with temperature and thus can be considered a forcing upon the climate.

  316. I think the air heats quicker and cools faster due to the fact that it has a lower heat capacity per mole than CO2. I don’t think it is the thermal conductivity difference.

  317. Many thanks Anthony for this long needed experiment being carefully performed, especially with the loggers. The reversal on shutdown jells my past claims. Your ability to gather all of this necessary equipment and do this on your own time awe’s me. To me you are more the true scientist than many who claim to be.

  318. Steve from Rockwood says:
    October 19, 2011 at 11:59 am

    So if I have the curtains closed, the visible light still travels through the glass and is presumably converted to IR which is then prevented from leaving back through the glass. To make things even more confusing, the area between the glass and the curtain doesn’t heat up very much. The curtains are very light in color. The windows are always closed.
    My belief is that the IR is not created until the visible light is absorbed by the dark floor but I have no idea.

    Myrrh will be along shortly to explain to you why you can’t possibly have observed that. Laugh tolerantly, but don’t respond. It will make you a permanent target for reams of unphysics.

  319. “5. Per the engineering table, air is a better conductor of heat than pure CO2, so it warms faster, and when the lamps are turned off, it cools faster.”

    I completely agree that air warms faster and cools faster, but NOT because of conductivity. I believe it WARMS faster due to its lower specific heat capacity. See the following for excellent comments regarding this:
    Alec Rawls says:
    October 19, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    As for air then COOLING faster, I believe it is because it had the higher temperature and the rate of cooling is greater when there is a larger difference in temperature.

  320. Walt The Physicist says:
    October 19, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    While you guys are trying to do some science here Gavin Schmidt is celebrating a New Award from the American Geophysical Union Recognizes Excellence in Climate Communications. It comes with $25,000 prize. Nice response to the questions regarding Gavin’s communications during his taxpayers funded working hours.

    All those remuneration restriction regs come with an implicit intro phrase: “For those below an informally determined pay grade, …” After all: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

  321. Matt says:

    October 19, 2011 at 2:45 pm
    “… Nope. I fully concede that it is possible that the Gore experiment is flawed.”

    That is pronounced “frawed”.

    Anthony claims that this whole effort was to prove that Gore’s show presented an ill conceived, staged experiment. Fine. But, my challenge to Anthony is that an unintended(?) consequence of this article is that it has confused a lot of folks who don’t understand the underlying science.

    Very few have demonstrated such confusion here, and the vast majority of those have been disingenuous warmistas such as yourself, attempting to confuse the import of what Anthony has demonstrated.

    Gore is a fraud. Speak to that.

  322. Dr. Roy Spencer says:

    “someone far up the thread commented that a little cookie jar can’t be compared to the depth of the atmosphere. Based upon my back-of-the-envelope calculation, a 1 ft. cookie jar with pure CO2 is equivalent to over 2,000 ft of atmosphere (from the ground up) containing 390 ppm of CO2.”

    It appears to me that the thickness of the air or CO2 over the planets in the jars was more like averaging 3 inches. That’s roughly equivalent to a 600-700 foot layer of air that has 390 PPMV CO2. Which is roughly equivalent to 3.5-4% as much CO2 per unit area of surface as the portion of Earth’s atmosphere below the effective altitude of producing atmospheric thermal radiation directly to space (somewhere around the 400 millibar level). Furthermore, in the setup shown, the globes in the jars would get rid of heat by convection a few times as much as by radiation,
    unlike Earth’s surface as a whole.

    At this rate, I would not expect the experiment to show a significant warming effect by CO2, even if the infrared lamps produce heavily shorter IR wavelengths where glass is largely transparent (which I expect is the case). I expect Watts’ results to be more replicable than Gore’s.

  323. George E. Smith; says:
    October 19, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    A room temperature bottle of water is the appropriate source for the correct LWIR spectrum emitted by the earth surface (average); NOT a “heat” lamp.

    Yeah, I’d thought of tossing that into the conversation, noting that it wouldn’t be radiating much power. In fact, the entire “room”, being at room temperature, is already radiating in the correct spectrum. So simply setting up two IR-transparent containers with differing CO2 levels should work. If the “basic physics” is correctly posited, of course.

  324. The Mythbuster’s experiment doesn’t seem to be anything to get excited about. A TV show depends on ratings and good publicity, and having a nerdy boy with a koolaid IV in his arm supporting a global warming “verification” isn’t convincing, but was sure to keep the would-be “critics” at bay. They should not have used ice sculptures of any kind, as they were not needed, but used for effect. They added humidity of unknown variable degree to the boxes. They referred to the air box as a “control” but real control of variables would be required of much more than a quick temp reading of the lights in front of the boxes. Box construction and materials testing would seem to be a biggie, especially with thin plastic film and wood slats screwed together, not exactly spec’ed assemby line products. Another odd thing was the “scientist” in front of the computer, apparently monitoring gas levels in the boxes which would indicate instrumentation inside the boxes which were not shown, but curiously some kind of baking thermometers were stuck in holes to temps and manually monitored instead of a state of the art sensor.

  325. David Springer:

    And I wish you would read more carefully. The comment of mine to which refer clearly states in the first sentence of the second paragraph:

    Fair enough. My bad for grouping you in with the other two.

  326. Smokey says:

    My own often stated view is that a 2xCO2 rise will increase temperature by ≈1°C, ±0.5°C.

    Henry@Smokey
    How would you know for sure that the net effect of a bit more CO2 is warming rather than cooling?

    clearly,

    1) there is some warming caused by the CO2, by re-radiation of earth light, 14-16 um
    2) there is some cooling caused by the CO2, by re-radiation of sun light, @various wavelengths, between 0-5 um.
    3) there is some cooling caused by the CO2 by taking part in the photosynthesis (plants and trees need warmth to grow )
    4) there is some warming happening again due to the observed increased vegetation which causes some heat to be trapped again, presumably by the increase in greenery and the associated increase in moisture. This increase in vegetation could be partly due to 1) human intervention, 2) increased CO2 which acts as fertilizer/accelerator for growth.

    Looking at the development of the increase in maxima, means and minima over the past 35 years or so, I came to a ratio of 9:3:1 after randomly evaluating 15 terrestial weather stations . So it was not minima pushing up the means, as would be expected if an increase in GHG was the cause. It was the opposite: either the sun shone more brightly or there were less clouds. Also, warming, as seen by the means, is virtually non-existent on the SH. It happens mostly on the NH. We know from the Gas Laws that the CO2 is diffused and distributed evenly over the NH and SH. So again, I would have to conclude that there is no evidence to support here that it is the increase in GHG’s that is causing the “problem” (for those that think that the warming of the planet is a problem).

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

    So, Smokey, I am puzzled how you can be so sure about your figure, even if it is a modest one, and by what research it is supported, taking into account all 4 factors reported…..

  327. @ KevinK,

    Thank you for this: “. . . .”observations” with “models”. Both are useful, but observations RULE outside of the climate “science” world.” Well-said.

    I’m in a long-running email debate on a similar subject, and I also made that statement. Carefully measured and properly verified observations always trump conjecture, hypothesis, and especially models. This is, after all, how science makes progress. The recent excitement at CERN and their speedy little particles is a very good case on point. Did the little rays get there too fast? Or, did the measuring system have a flaw? I’m betting on Einstein on this one. Thus, my caveat that observations must be carefully measured and properly verified.

    (BS Chem E, and Esq. to engineers and scientific types).

  328. PeterGeorge @9.02pm says
    “A while ago, John Christy offered an exquisitely simple experiment that demonstrates back radiation ( a metal bar in a vacuum heated with fixed electrical power, with and without a nearby bar that is not externally heated ).”

    I can see why that would work and be relevant. Do you know where the actual details can be found?

  329. Would be interesting to (1) place a material to absorb visible light in each jar (e.g. a sheet of brown paper) and (2) run the experiment with visible light bulbs, to see if you *can* get the expected result of CO2 IR absorption with that equipment.

  330. “””R. Gates says:
    October 19, 2011 at 10:04 pm
    In any event it such an effect would have nothing to do with how CO2 operates in Earth’s atmosphere.“””

    Okay. So why was the Climate 101 video produced anyway? The sponsor claimed it was “high school physics”. To insist this level of “science” is suitable for children is disturbing to say the least.

  331. But then, a signal processor comes to this conclusion:

    The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration which is another time series shows a smooth accelerating increase ending in a linear trend of about 2ppmv/year over the past decade. This time series does not contain this predominent 65 year period so increase in CO2 concentration cannot be the driver of observed global temperature change; full stop!

  332. While i agree with your caveat Anthny about take aways, it is still highly amusing that the air only jar was cooler than the CO2 filled Jar :D

  333. There are so many comments here that I have only read about 20%, but none of them seem to have yet commented:

    For Al Gore: This really is “AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH”

    Now can someone please take away this fraudster’s Nobel Prize.

    Excellent work Anthony – another nail in the coffin of so called ‘climate science’, a cult which routinely manipulates and distorts facts to feed its leaders’ grant addiction.

  334. There is one thing of which you can be certain.
    In a world hungry for energy, if and I say IF CO2 amplified and trapped heat in the way these loonies claim it can…then some brilliant engineer would have found a way to use it to capture energy.
    No engineer has ever suggested using CO2 as a means of: trapping, amplifiying, capturing, transmitting energy…you’d have to ask yourself why.

  335. Mike Jonas says:
    October 19, 2011 at 3:33 pm
    Kudos to Anthony, but a bit of kudos to R Gates as well. Bear in mind that R Gates’ initial comment on this thread began “This was an excellent job Anthony. I commend your diligence in carrying this out, and I agree with your final analysis.” and ended “But this matters not…as in the end, I fully agree that I would have lost the bet on whether the experiment as illustrated in the 101 video would have worked or not (even though your’s was not exactly the same). Your analysis on why the illustrated experiment would not work is spot on, and is exactly why the BBC and Mythbusters experiments were successful.“.

    BTW, I’m not saying that there’s nothing to disagree with in R Gates’ comments (or with Anthony’s experiments for that matter), but I think it reasonable to recognise that R Gates’ comments have been thoughtful and positive – something to be welcomed in this highly polarised debate.

    Thoughtful and positive? By deflecting to more dubious science experiments pretending they are proven? How were the BBC and Mythbusters experiments successful?

    Typical deflection – to more unproven claims in experiments masquerading as science. Take us through the BBC and Mythbusters steps and prove they were “successful”.

    All the experiments produced by AGWScience Fiction are junk science deliberately designed to appear real life physics fact – this is deliberate deception, proving malice aforethought, corrupt minds planning and executing mass deception, unconscionable in any circumstances, but even more so as children are targetted (and by extension the child they were when they trusted Nye). And those defending this in any way, knowingly or unknowingly, are party to the deception.

    What is so difficult to understand here? They wouldn’t have to cheat if the science was real.

  336. I have pivacy shades fitted to the rear windows of my car and guess what, they keep the the rear passengers and the car cool. But how can they as they are fitted inside the glass and the IR energy must be trapped in the car and as they are a fine mesh the heated air behind them should find it’s way into the car?

  337. So easy a high school kid can do it. Right?
    ——–
    Well the experiment is high school physics but properly understanding the greenhouse effect is well beyond high school physics.

    Al Gore is being very naive to call it high school physics since there are a lot of subtleties involved.

    Here are the points of naivety about the whole thing:

    1. The Al Gore experiment itself is not a valid ‘proof’ of the green house effect , since the thermal conductivity of 100% CO2 is much lower than that of air. In other words it is not a true controlled experiment since any differential warming could be reasonably attributed to the difference in conductivity.

    2. If you use more climate realistic amounts of CO2 the temperature difference will be too small to measure.

    3. The use of infrared lamps is bogus as far as the atmospheric greenhouse effect is concerned. Just normal visible incandescents would do just as well, since in the actual green house effect the heating effect comes from the sun.

  338. Mr. Gore was attempting to demonstrate this effect in his setup, but there’s an obvious problem: he used infrared heat lamps rather than visible light lamps. Thus, it seems highly likely that the glass jars would block the incoming infrared, and convert it to heat. That being the case, the infrared radiative backscattering effect that makes up the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere couldn’t possibly be demonstrated here in the Climate 101 video.
    ————
    No. It’s not the case.

    The typical near infrared lamp used for heating has a distribution of wavelengths that is close to that of the visible spectrum.

    These near IR wavelengths are perfectly able to penetrate normal glass. Therefore the concern is not justified.

    Just check out the emission curves of these IR lamps and compare it to the transmission curve for glass to see what I mean. Google is your friend.
    For the thermal IR produced by emission from the earth’s surface it’s a completely different story. Then you need exotic materials like germanium or zinc selenide optics.

    But as I explained before. The use of near IR lamps is a distraction. Both these lamps or just plain ordinary ones would work equally well.

    Basically Al Gore understands the green house effect just as well as the WUWT readership. In other words at the level of a metaphor and without deep understanding.

  339. Brian H says:
    October 19, 2011 at 10:19 pm
    Steve from Rockwood says:
    October 19, 2011 at 11:59 am

    So if I have the curtains closed, the visible light still travels through the glass and is presumably converted to IR which is then prevented from leaving back through the glass. To make things even more confusing, the area between the glass and the curtain doesn’t heat up very much. The curtains are very light in color. The windows are always closed.
    My belief is that the IR is not created until the visible light is absorbed by the dark floor but I have no idea.

    Myrrh will be along shortly to explain to you why you can’t possibly have observed that. Laugh tolerantly, but don’t respond. It will make you a permanent target for reams of unphysics.

    I wasn’t going to.. But since you’ve invoked my name and piled on more ad hominem spreading it I now need to give my side of it.

    As in these carbon dioxide claims, people take AGWScience fiction memes for granted because they’re now ubiqitous having been successfully introduced into the education system to support the AGW claims, we now have a whole generation of adults who have been learning fictional physics. One such is the very basis of the energy budget, that shortwave radiation (Visible/UV/Near IR) from the Sun heats the land and oceans and produces thermal infrared, and that thermal infrared direct from the Sun plays no part in heating land and oceans.

    I have asked for proof. But so far no one has shown any mechanism or experimental proof that Visible light is even capable of heating land and oceans. Instead I get attacked because of their failure, to detract from their failure.

    Visible light doesn’t have the power to move molecules of water which is how matter is heated up. Visible light from the Sun works on electronic transitional level, that is, on a sub atomic level, it isn’t capable of moving the whole atom or molecule. You’ll need to get a sense of scale here. Moreover, Visible light gets bounced back out by the electrons of the molecules of oxygen and nitrogen in our atmosphere scattering it – proving that the atmosphere is not transparent to Visible as the ‘AGW greenhouse’ claim has it. Moreover, water is a transparent medium to Visible light, the molecules of water don’t even let Visible light in to play with their electrons, after trying for a bit, visible light moves on, this is called transmission. It can’t even get in to play with the electrons, let alone move the whole molecule to vibration.

    In classic physics the difference between these shortwave non-thermal energies and the longer invisible thermal infrared, the thermal energy of the Sun on the move, are categorised as Light and Heat. You will not be able to read older science discussions with real comprehension unless this is understood. They never use terms like heat energy to refer to shortwave light. Shortwave light is not hot, is not thermal, is not heat, we do not feel it as heat.

    Back to what Steve was describing. You don’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of understanding what is happening as long as you believe the fiction that visible light heats floors. And, if that is your claim you should prove it because it goes against all known traditional tried and tested and physics used in countless applications.

    And here is another example of how this is deliberate deceit, malicious in conception and acts to deliberately dumb down science education in support of AGW as I discovered a short while ago here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/spencer-and-braswell-on-slashdot/#comment-711614

    Please, do make an effort to read this carefully. NASA used to teach children that the heat we feel from the Sun is the invisible thermal infrared, (and that we can’t even feel near infrared because it is not hot, not thermal), now AGWScience says that this thermal infrared, heat from the Sun, plays no part in heating land and oceans. If you can’t see the disjunct in that then further explanation will be useless as long as you continue to repeat a fictional science meme without giving any mechanism or example of how visible light heats land and oceans. Put up or shut up, I’m getting very tired of asking for science fact on a science blog and getting this idiotic ad homs for answers instead.

    So what’s the new fictional meme? That the visible light we see from the Sun or an incandescent light bulb is thermal energy from the Sun! And you think you’ve not been dumbed down??

    In reality around 95% of an incandescent lightbulb’s energy is heat, thermal infrared, only 5% visible light. It’s thermal energy, thermal infrared, which is capable of moving atoms and molecules to vibrational states, heating them up, visible light cannot do this.

    As NASA used to teach traditional real world physical fact about this and now doesn’t and the ‘science’ around now is geared to promotion of this misinformation, I don’t have any reason to trust any figures for how much thermal energy, thermal infrared not visible, reaches the Earth. Here is something from the beginnings of our understanding of the science here, which gives a figure of 43% heat, thermal infrared, reaching Earth:

    http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/056/mwr-056-08-0322.pdf

    This is the real heat we feel from the Sun. The real heat which is the invisible thermal infrared capable of heating you up inside and the water and land around you.

    Do not repeat your ad homs in lieu of answering my request for proof of your claims against traditional still well known physics.

  340. The simplest way I can think if to have a controlled experiment is to use one glass jar with 100% CO2 and another glass jar with 100% argon.

    These gases have thermal conductivities which are very similar. (since the molar masses are 44 and 40 respectively).

    To make it easy on yourself just use;
    1. normal incandescent globes,

    2. use metal spheres painted black to convert the mainly IR plus visible of the lamp into heat

    3. and place the thermometer bulb in contact with the metal sphere and use some method to ensure good thermal contact

    4. Put the lamp on the opposite side to the thermometer.

  341. Last year I tried the same experiment using glass soda bottles, type k thermocouples, data logger, and CO2 from painball. I put the bottles under a heat lamp and also tried them outside in full sunlight. I too couldn’t measure a temperature difference over hours of monitoring.

  342. Smokey says
    After all this time, Gates still doesn’t understand the fact that rises in CO2 are the effect of temperature rises, not the cause:
    ——–
    Hi Smokey, but the ice cores say the delay between ocean heating and the release of CO2 is 800 years. So why is there no delay now?

    Easiest conclusion is that now is different from the past for some reason.

  343. Werner Brozek says: October 19, 2011 at 10:23 pm
    “I completely agree that air warms faster and cools faster, but NOT because of conductivity. I believe it WARMS faster due to its lower specific heat capacity.”

    Conductivity is linked to specific heat capacity. That makes sense. But Air has a HIGHER specific heat capacity than CO2 ~ 1.005 to ~0.846 kJ/kgK according to The Engineering Toolbox

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-properties-d_156.html

  344. Bill Illis says
    That should put an END to all these same kind of experiments (and some people have some serious explaining to do).
    ———-
    No it should be the START of these kinds of experiments.
    As Steve Mosher says, this kind of experiment falls a long way short of matching the way the green house operates in the real atmosphere.

    BUT these kinds of experiments, if done properly, would eliminate some of the junk ideas that keep on getting put forward over and over again by the armchair philosophers.

  345. Myrrh October 19, 2011 at 4:47 am
    Let’s hope… The AGWScience Fiction department continues to create ‘experiments’ and give ‘examples’ which have no basis in physical reality. This begins with the ‘energy budget’, claiming that Visible light heats land and oceans. How? It’s not physically possible.

    Not only is it physically possible, but it is true. The “how” is that the land is not transparent to visible light, nor is it extremely reflective to it. The oceans, not so much, but still, some. Climate scientists did not invent this.

    So many have bought into this, even scientists clever in their own fields, that it is presumed true because now ubiquitous, it became ubiquitous through the education system.

    You underestimate scientists to a fantastic degree. If visible light could not heat land and ocean, every physicist in the world would be jumping up and down about it. I find it hard to see how you don’t realize that you don’t know what you’re talking about. In that sense, your messages are interesting.

  346. Anthony, you are the greatest. All of your endeavours, from the ultra-serious surface stations project(s) to lighter stuff like Kenji the Concerned Scientist to your sharp debunking of Al Gore’s chicanery – it’s like you’re the sceptic with the most viscious knife. The damage you do is so considerable. Please keep butchering the bastards.

  347. This is great, Anthony is to be congratulated. “Hi” to the plebs reading from MediaMatters, how does it feel to be owned? I would presume it’s not an unfamiliar feeling for your kind.

  348. Real physics as traditionally taught knows the difference between Light and Heat, real world applications prove it.

    http://www.enviroharvest.ca/solar.htm

    “Solar Energy Simplified
    Energy from the sun, solar energy, is harvested in two methods. Semiconductor technology called Photo-Voltaic (PV) converts light energy into electricity. Thermal energy from the sun is harvested through heat absorption. Both types of captured energy can be used immediately or stored for later use.”

    Traditional science based on real physics is everywhere proved around you, learn to look. Countless applications from applied science which are not, and cannot be, be built on AGWScience Fiction Inc’s imaginary, impossible, memes.

    Which is why no proof is ever forthcoming..

    Thermal capture plates:

    http://www.careyglasssolar.com/flat-plate-solar-panels.php?gclid=CKWA8d6C96sCFYob4QodhkW3wg

    Solar Flat Plate Collector
    Our Solar Flat Plate Collectors is made up of a metal sheet (copper), to which a selective surface coating has been applied allowing for very efficient heat absorption.

    This is capturing the real heat source on Earth, the thermal infrared heat energy direct from the Sun, the thermal energy from the Sun which heats matter directly by moving molecules to vibrational states, temperature being the measure of the intensity of this. That invisible thermal energy from the Sun we feel as heat and which warms us up here on the surface, which reaches us in eight and a half minutes.

    How well can both methods be used together?

    http://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2010/08/new-solar-cell-generates-electricity-via-suns-light-heat/

    New Solar Cell Generates Electricity Via Sun’s Light & Heat
    A team of scientists has invented a new type of solar cell that converts both the sun’s heat and light into electricity, potentially giving a boost to the efficiency of solar energy harvesting devices. The cell combines a photovoltaic process that turns light into electricity with another that converts heat; combined, they beat the current record for solar energy efficiency, as well as the theoretical efficiency limit of a cell of this design.

    As I’ve said, real world physics as taught by traditional science knows the differences. Only an idiot would try to heat a copper plate with visible light after learning about heat and light in real world physics..

    ..so no experiments to prove that visible light heats land and oceans because those promoting this AGW science fiction are not ignorant about real science and this not as easily fudged as the heating carbon dioxide experiment here. But the latter is the poster child of all these deceitful experiments presented as proving AGW.

    What Anthony has done here is momentous. Crack this one wide open and it could lead to a flood of critical thinking coming back into science education and general consciousness, now blocked by the barrier of constantly repeated impossible science fiction memes.

  349. Henry@Zac
    I think the idea behind these things is that the window with the black of the shade behind it, starts acting as a mirror sending a lot of radiation back. I know they do work, we have it too.

  350. Thank you Anthony!

    That was a great debunking.

    I have sometimes thought about these experiments and wondered what are the results with some unreasonably high level of carbon dioxide (methane, dry air vs. water saturated air) in the jar, say 10%, 100%, and using other wavelengths, and other jar materials.

    Of course, the result is bit off topic; as you have already shown Al Gore is has faked it.

    Thank you for a fascinating article.

  351. R Gates

    “Smokey doesn’t seem to understand the nature of positive feedbacks, nor the fact that some increases of CO2 in the atmosphere have nothing to do with temperature and thus can be considered a forcing upon the climate.”

    “Smokey doesn’t seem to understand agree with my understanding of the nature of positive feedbacks, nor the agree with what “consensus science” claims as fact that some increases of CO2 in the atmosphere have nothing to do with temperature and thus can be considered a forcing upon the climate.”

    I think that puts the matter in a more scientific style of observations.

    After that we can start on the evidence. Like so many billion years’ geological evidence of the lack of positive feedbacks or “tipping points” with CO2, starting with the ice core records that show that today’s temperature fluctuations are well within natural limits. Like the lack of evidence that humankind has matured intellectually beyond medieval-attitude witchhunts based on bad science.

  352. I like the way R Gates and Lazy Teenager pontificate, giving their opinions on Anthony’s replication experiment – without lifting a finger to do their own experiments, while Anthony does the actual work.

    Gates says: “…increases of CO2 in the atmosphere have nothing to do with temperature and thus can be considered a forcing upon the climate.” Wrong, as usual. CO2 has a small effect on temperature. The effect is beneficial and has caused no problems. And where did the “forcing” go? See the link below.

    Lazy T says: “…the ice cores say the delay between ocean heating and the release of CO2 is 800 years. So why is there no delay now? Easiest conclusion is that now is different from the past for some reason.” A typical argumentum ad ignorantium: ‘CO2 must be the cause, because I can’t think of anything else.’

    The 800 year delay is the approximate time span from the end of the global MWP to now. And the current rise in CO2 has not had the claimed effect on temperature.

    There is much more to the climate than in Gates’ and Lazy’s CO2-limited world.

  353. R Gates

    Here is more material that carefully explains feedback: how we know that the feedbacks have been grossly overstated, and that natural feedbacks are almost always negative.

    Click my name, then click “Skeptics Climate Science Powerpoint presentation” in the top right hand corner. I’ve utilized and developed Warren Meyer’s presentation that spells out the feedback issues even more slowly and carefully. I am very grateful to Meyer for giving me a perfect springboard to develop my own presentation further.

    Go to slides 13 thru 17 in particular – but put them in context, and check the grounds on which Meyer (rightly) claims expertise in this area.

  354. Thank you Myrrh for your post at 2:36 I’m going to bookmark that, fascinating stuff. I never realised how much bad science is being used.

  355. Anthony – your post is still showing the false mechanism for how a greenhouse works. It would improve your post if you corrected it, otherwise it is open to be rejected because wrong in part (the description of the basic principle).

  356. LazyTeenager says: October 20, 2011 at 3:03 am

    Smokey says
    After all this time, Gates still doesn’t understand the fact that rises in CO2 are the effect of temperature rises, not the cause:
    ——–
    Hi Smokey, but the ice cores say the delay between ocean heating and the release of CO2 is 800 years. So why is there no delay now?

    A Huxley moment “The Lord hath delivered him into my hands…”

    Think about what happened 800 years ago. Looks like we have verification for (a) the 800-year delay (b) the primary CO2 link to the oceans whose global thermohaline current is of the order of 800 years (c) the Medieval Warm Period. Thanks for reminding me.

    To nitpickers, who also do an important job in Science, please note I say “verification” not “proof”.

  357. Dave Springer says:
    October 19, 2011 at 8:15 pm
    I’m afraid that’s wrong. What heats a greenhouse is the sun. The glass allows the sunlight to enter but largely blocks the means by which it cools.

    Wikipedia does not agree with you:
    “Thus, the primary heating mechanism of a greenhouse is convection. This can be demonstrated by opening a small window near the roof of a greenhouse: the temperature drops considerably.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse

  358. R. Gates;

    In your eagerness to weasel out of the wager you made with me, you neglected to answer the direct questions that I asked of you. Somethng we gentleman would never do unless by mistake, but a scoundrel would do deliberately. I’ll not suggest which I think you are, but figured I’d post the questions again and give you another crack at them.

    1. You defended Gore’s “illustration” to no end, claiming that even though the results were faked, the experiment was more or less accurate in terms of the results “illustrated”. Will you now admit that the Gore rendition was an outright fraud showing results that not only were faked, but were in fact the OPPOSITE of what doing the experiment that was illustrated would have shown?
    2. Do you continue to defend what Gore did in any way, shape, or form?
    3. If you cannot defend what Gore did, will you issue a statement clearly condemning what he did?

  359. Myrrh says:
    October 20, 2011 at 3:54 am
    What Anthony has done here is momentous. Crack this one wide open and it could lead to a flood of critical thinking coming back into science education and general consciousness, now blocked by the barrier of constantly repeated impossible science fiction memes.

    True. What we are seeing is a parallel to Galileo’s experiment showing that objects fall at the same speed. Until then it was taught that heavy objects fell faster than light objects.

    What Galileo showed was that no amount of thought experiment (models) can prove anything true or false. What is required is actual observations, because time and time again it has been shown that nature rarely works the way we think it works.

  360. When I first started paying attention to the issue of “global warming” I brought a preconceived notion to my thinking…that the leftistas could not be trusted to objectively perform “science”. The pioneering skeptics like John Daly and Michael Crichton were correct in their assessments. The science and data is irrelevant…progressive activists want to use things that look like science as as tools for destroying western civilization and technology…with an iPhone in hand.

  361. Lucy Skywalker says:

    “Like the lack of evidence that humankind has matured intellectually beyond medieval-attitude witchhunts based on bad science.”

    Brilliant….may I use?

  362. LazyTeenager says:
    October 20, 2011 at 3:30 am
    No it should be the START of these kinds of experiments.
    As Steve Mosher says, this kind of experiment falls a long way short of matching the way the green house operates in the real atmosphere.

    According to the EPA, the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere works be the exact same principle as a real greenhouse. According to Wikipedia, the primary heating mechanism in a greenhouse is convection.

    What is lacking in much of the methodology used by Climate Science is the notion of a “control”. What would make an interesting experiment would be a greenhouse made of plastic that did not block IR and one made of glass with the same R value that did block IR, and compare the temperatures. A lot of the energy from the sun is in the form of IR, which the glass in a greenhouse blocks from entering.

  363. Apparently the role of CO2 heating the earth is minor as compared to convection. The “greenhouse effect” is primarily due to convection, not IR blocking due to CO2.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse

    Air warmed by the heat from hot interior surfaces is retained in the building by the roof and wall. In addition, the warmed structures and plants inside the greenhouse re-radiate some of their thermal energy in the infra-red, to which glass is partly opaque, so some of this energy is also trapped inside the glasshouse. However, this latter process is a minor player compared with the former (convective) process. Thus, the primary heating mechanism of a greenhouse is convection. This can be demonstrated by opening a small window near the roof of a greenhouse: the temperature drops considerably. This principle is the basis of the autovent automatic cooling system. Thus, the glass used for a greenhouse works as a barrier to air flow, and its effect is to trap energy within the greenhouse. The air that is warmed near the ground is prevented from rising indefinitely and flowing away.

  364. Davidmhoffer said to R. Gates:

    “I’ll not suggest which I think you are, but figured I’d post the questions again and give you another crack at them.

    1. You defended Gore’s “illustration” to no end, claiming that even though the results were faked, the experiment was more or less accurate in terms of the results “illustrated”. Will you now admit that the Gore rendition was an outright fraud showing results that not only were faked, but were in fact the OPPOSITE of what doing the experiment that was illustrated would have shown?
    2. Do you continue to defend what Gore did in any way, shape, or form?
    3. If you cannot defend what Gore did, will you issue a statement clearly condemning what he did?”

    If he actually answered the questions, he would have to write an apology letter to Trenberth. So expect redirection and answering questions not asked.

  365. Anthony,

    thanks for that experiment, great!
    Would you mind to repeat that without the jar lids? I would be very interested in temperatur risings of both air and co2 by intake of infra red light, directly.
    As you stated the fillings of the jars were heated up by the glas only, during your experiment.
    Our atmosphere doesn’t have a glas lid :-)

  366. Man Bearpigg says:
    October 20, 2011 at 1:12 am
    I have bookmarked this page ..

    Would be interesting to see the same experiment with UV bulbs.
    ———
    Or simply do the experiment that the BBC did. The glass was the key point of failure. The Anchor Hocking glass cookie jars were a bad choice for the visual in the 101 video, and didn’t even match the narration of the video which said to use bottles. And if the Gore team wanted to turn this into a positive, they could simply issue an apology and re-do the experiment using plastic containers and use it as a learning experience about the transmission of infrared across glass.

  367. LazyTeenager says:
    October 20, 2011 at 2:30 am
    “Basically Al Gore understands the green house effect just as well as the WUWT readership. In other words at the level of a metaphor and without deep understanding.”

    Mr. Lazy you are full of yourself. I dare say there are a fair number here that are your equal or one or two your better. Most readers like myself don’t hide behind self chosen descriptive names we have our say and are willing to defend positions or acknowledge error. Why don’t you come out and play in the intellectual sandbox honestly?

  368. glacierman says:
    October 20, 2011 at 6:07 am
    Davidmhoffer said to R. Gates:

    “I’ll not suggest which I think you are, but figured I’d post the questions again and give you another crack at them.

    1. You defended Gore’s “illustration” to no end, claiming that even though the results were faked, the experiment was more or less accurate in terms of the results “illustrated”. Will you now admit that the Gore rendition was an outright fraud showing results that not only were faked, but were in fact the OPPOSITE of what doing the experiment that was illustrated would have shown?
    2. Do you continue to defend what Gore did in any way, shape, or form?
    3. If you cannot defend what Gore did, will you issue a statement clearly condemning what he did?”

    If he actually answered the questions, he would have to write an apology letter to Trenberth. So expect redirection and answering questions not asked.
    ———
    There is no relationship between the errors of of the 101 video and anything related to Dr. Trenberth or the physics related to CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas.

  369. I’m exhausted, so Mr. Watts must be doubly so. Great experiment, well done. OMG once and for ALL, this was not an experiment about CO2, it was to prove that Al Gore and his groupies know nothing about basic science. The sheer arrogance of it, that just because he, Al Gore i.e. says it, it must be true.

    CO2 can produce heat just like any other molecule in the atmosphere that can absorb radiation. The question is not whether it produces heat but whether the heat produced exceeds the heat produced by the surface of the planet thereby increasing the temperature of the earth.

    Has it ever crossed anyone’s mind that maybe we have a molecular atmosphere that is almost transparent to SW radiation not to produce heat to set the maximum temperature but to maintain a temperature below the maximum (by the absorption of LW radiation) to slow down the cooling process and nothing more.

  370. Anthony’s experiment is great at debunking Gore’s silly, ineffective attempt at an experiment.

    The challenge that others are making to have a more realistic experiment is made very difficult by the face that any experiment trying to model the “atmospheric GHE” must somehow include “outer space” ie surroundings that are much colder than the rest of the experiment.

  371. glacierman says: October 20, 2011 at 5:56 am

    Lucy Skywalker says:

    “Like the lack of evidence that humankind has matured intellectually beyond medieval-attitude witchhunts based on bad science.”

    Brilliant….may I use?

    Thanks! Indeed you may. But be wary. I see a witchhunt mentality not only in CAGW supporters, but also in some skeptics here, in their attitudes to… eg astrology… etc. Thus Kepler was a knowledgeable supporter of astrology, while carefully distancing himself from its superficial study by superficial practitioners and supporters. It’s no doubt the difficulty of handling all this, that keeps certain topics taboo here. We have enough to get on with, with Climate Science. IMHO.

  372. …It’s no doubt the difficulty of handling all this, that keeps certain topics taboo here. We have enough to get on with, with Climate Science. IMHO.

    Meant to add, that the best of us, with the best of intentions, can be guilty of witchhunts. For every finger that points away from me, three fingers point back towards me.

  373. I did my own version of the experiment.

    See my post of October 19, 2011 at 7:22 am

    My results were that there was no actual increase in temperature in the jar with CO2.
    [in fact the runs with CO2 were slightly cooler but not statistically significantly]

    It was a learning experience but didn’t replicate the conditions of an earth atmosphere unconfined by a bottle very well. I believed, on the basis of the experiment, that CO2 caused some slight warming but that the feedbacks were negative instead of positive.

    Now I am not certain the CO2 causes any warming at all.

    I think that those who reported increased temperature from CO2 had sealed containers and that is why it worked that way.

  374. Seems things often go missing.
    Missing Medieval Warming Period.
    Missing Hide the Decline Data.
    Missing Ocean Heat.
    Missing Al Gore CO2 Experiment.
    Seems we really need a super sleuth… oh wait…we’ve got two…
    Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre!

  375. Anthony, do you ever sleep? I don’t know how you carry on with your family, your business and as a watchman for the criminal class i.e. Gore and company. I’m leaving a tip in the jar to help offset all the costs you incur. This comes from my big, fat bank account that the oil companies contribute to each month. Ha!

    Nice work as always.

    Doug

  376. OK, here’s a dumb question: where is the PayPal donate button for the tip jar? I see the surface stations donate button but I thought there was a general tip jar for the website? Can anyone point me to the location on the site?
    Thanks in advance.

  377. Tim F says

    The challenge that others are making to have a more realistic experiment is made very difficult by the face that any experiment trying to model the “atmospheric GHE” must somehow include “outer space” ie surroundings that are much colder than the rest of the experiment.

    Henry@Tim

    …and that is not the only thing that might be important.
    I have already identified at least 4 factors and I worry that there still might be more,
    see my comment directed at Smokey

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/#comment-772384

  378. Even beyond such an experiment, the promoters of the idea of AGW haven’t even indicated the way that greater amounts of CO2 affect air masses of high pressure — the “H” on a weather chart — which are THE climatic condition that causes higher (or very high) temperatures. So with a larger volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, high-pressure ridges are therefore becoming stronger and more commonplace? In turn, troughs of low pressure — the “L” on a weather chart — are becoming perhaps weaker or less influential or prominent? Or does one affect the other?

    This doesn’t even address that unlike a greenhouse structure located on earth, and which truly does have a solid demarcation line above it (meaning a ceiling), the atmosphere from the ground level going up to thousands of miles into space is fully porous. Moreover, research has indicated that a greater amount of heat escapes from earth’s atmosphere into the great beyond than previously believed or assumed.

  379. Ask why is it so? October 20, 2011 at 7:10 am
    CO2 can produce heat just like any other molecule in the atmosphere that can absorb radiation. The question is not whether it produces heat but whether the heat produced exceeds the heat produced by the surface of the planet thereby increasing the temperature of the earth.

    No, that’s not the question. No one claims that the heat produced exceeds the heat produced by the surface of the planet. That would be absurd, since it contradicts the fact that the air temperature decreases with altitude (up to the tropopause). What is claimed is that the surface is warmer than if there were less CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Your misunderstanding, which many skeptics share, rests on a conceptual difficulty with the words “warming,” “warms,” etc. If the temperature of an object is higher now than it was some time ago, clearly the object has warmed, but this does not imply that an extra heater has been introduced, because the increase might be due to the introduction of additional insulation. Surely you would not deny that insulation could keep the object warmer than it would be without insulation or with less insulation. Even if someone said that the insulation “warmed” the object, you would not deny this on the grounds that insulation is not a heater (e.g., a furnace), but when someone says that atmospheric CO2 warms the earth, you think this means that it’s a heater.

    Well, you may object, insulation does not continue to raise the temperature; when the insulation is introduced, the object warms to some temperature, and stops warming. That’s true, but the continued warming caused by atmospheric CO2 is a result of the continual increase of the atmospheric concentration of CO2. It’s like the warming caused by continually adding more insulation. However, it’s also somewhat different. If the increase of CO2 were to be halted, the earth and atmosphere would not very quickly reach thermodynamic equilibrium, so there would be a limited period of additional temperature increase after the halt.

    Atmospheric CO2 is not very much like insulation, because most insulation does not work by re-radiation, but this does no damage to the analogy, because a continuing increase of insulation would raise the temperature of the object. (I hope you don’t object that there’s a limit to the temperature increase you’d get by adding insulation. The same is true of atmospheric CO2, and no one claims otherwise.)

    I see so many people with your misconception that I often find it hard to believe that they are not pretending to misunderstand, trying to mislead people, but you use it so implicitly that I don’t think you are pretending – probably the same is true of many others (but not all). BTW, I’m an AGW skeptic.

  380. climatereason says:
    October 20, 2011 at 7:40 am
    R gates

    Please answer my question as to in which decade you believed the earth started warming
    thanks
    tonyb
    ——–
    I take it you mean when the Earth started warming from human activity? Or are you talking specifically about the contribution to the atmosphere of CO2 from industrial activities? Also, when you say “warming”, could this include any affect on climate, such that there might be less cooling because of human influence during a period that might otherwise see more cooling (i.e. the current potential new quiet sun period being a case in point).

  381. Anthony, I dub thee ‘Patron Saint of Scientists’. Great work. But if you allow me a very small criticism, during the 10 minute Oral thermometer experiment I think you should have used the infra red thermometer a couple of times to confirm that both lamps had roughly the same temperature.

  382. steven mosher says on October 19, 2011 at 4:52 am

    SW radiation hits the earth and warms it. The earth gives off IR. That IR must return to space. If the atmosphere was transparent to IR the effective radiating altitude would be the surface. But the atmosphere is not transparent to IR. So the reradiates from a higher altitude, from a colder regime.

    Not entirely correct … review the facts regarding the “Atmospheric Window”. (How do you think satellite IR imagery works, showing ground temperature (sans clouds) using ~ 10 um wavelength?)

    Glad to supply any required references …

    Incidentally, notice the ‘peak’ in the LWIR ‘Planck’ curve and it’s proximity to said Atmospheric Window; do you think there is any coincidence (for earth’s long term energy/thermal balance) to this when temperatures reach say over 288 K, also bearing in mind radiated IR energy is proportional to T^4 (Temperature raised to the 4th power) … the effect being (a very rough analogy follows) to ‘spill water over the rim of a pail being filled upon reaching the top (overflow)’?

    .

  383. I would not give Bill Nye the benefit of the doubt. There is not one item he has published that would promote a hard look at AGW and consensus climate science. In fact he is currently in a competition to reduce his carbon footprint. He appeared in a “Stargate Atlantis” episode called “Brain Storm” where a runaway experiment caused localized cooling of the environment surrounding a lab and massive cyclonic storms were unleashed because of the temperature differential. In that show, the idea of climate disruption was stated as fact. There are probably many more examples that can be found.

    He is not a friend of climate skeptics until he helps to restore scientific integrity to scientific research and strives especially hard to properly disseminate scientific knowledge to the public.

  384. R. Gates;
    There is no relationship between the errors of of the 101 video and anything related to Dr. Trenberth.>>>

    That being the case, you have no excuse for refusing to answer the questions which I have now posted twice. Shall I repeat them a third time?

    And you are on record as having welched on the wager you agreed to, going so far as to suggest that I (the winner of the wager) actually pay for the fact that I won!

    When you read your own posts do you break up laughing at yourself?

  385. Sigh…I am SO TIRED of the lies and deliberate misstatements from the left. They will say ANYTHING and lie boldfaced if it serves their ends. Just yesterday Senator Reid talked about how unemployment is disproportionately affecting government workers while private sector jobs have been “doing well”. There is no way that is anything but a certifiable lie (easily disproven by BLS statistics), yet the MSM just accepts it and moves on…to Joe Biden passionately saying that Republicans want more women to be raped unless they approve Obama’s job bill. This despite the fact that all crimes have dropped over the past 5 years without Obama’s job bill.

    It is disappointing that Bill Nye felt it was worth besmirching his own reputation to do the voice over for this piece of political propaganda.

  386. The only thing I would have done different is to swap the jar under these infrared lamp. For more accuracy. Because you never know how these lamp were made, maybe the red filter or paint in these lamp are not equally done its a manufacturing process, so no lamp is really the same.

    G.P.

  387. Doug S says:
    October 20, 2011 at 8:04 am

    OK, here’s a dumb question: where is the PayPal donate button for the tip jar? I see the surface stations donate button but I thought there was a general tip jar for the website? Can anyone point me to the location on the site?
    Thanks in advance.

    ————

    Doug S: It’s the ‘fling funds’ link under the “Shameless Plug” heading on the sidebar (just above the Surface Stations” donation link. When you click ‘fling funds’ there some reference to helping to pay for a trip, which is out of date (unless Anthony is planning another one) but I think this just serves as a general pot by which we can assist Anthony with this website and his experiments as well. Cheers!

  388. Yes, seems like the properties of the thick glass in the containers interfere with the measurements that are trying to be taken. Ideally, as others have probably commented, the container thickness wants to approach 0 and it should be semi-permeable to allow for convective heat transfer. At least, that is how I would start with a physical model of the atmosphere.

  389. Thanks vigilantfish

    Anthony, why not take off the Kid gloves and give us a big, bold, DONATE button at the top of every page. I understand your humble philosophy but consider a little tweaking here. Enough of us know where you’re coming from and won’t let false accusations flourish unchallenged. If this is the kind of science and video documentary you are capable of then I believe there are enough in this community to support it in micro finance fashion. At any rate, keep up the outstanding work! It’s sorely needed in science education today.

  390. mkelly October 20, 2011 at 6:21 am
    Mr. Lazy you are full of yourself. I dare say there are a fair number here that are your equal or one or two your better. Most readers like myself don’t hide behind self chosen descriptive names we have our say and are willing to defend positions or acknowledge error. Why don’t you come out and play in the intellectual sandbox honestly?

    I’m no ally of Lazy Teenager, but are you suggesting that “mkelly” identifies you?

  391. What do you expect from a failed divinity student? For getting a science experiment right, he wouldn’t have a prayer.

  392. NetDr says:
    October 20, 2011 at 7:25 am

    given the molar mass difference air to CO2 (28 to 44 respectively) the same volume of CO2 will lag air even though CO2 has a lower Cp( specific heat) using an equal Q (heat) input.

  393. Smoking Frog says:
    October 20, 2011 at 10:31 am
    “…but are you suggesting that “mkelly” identifies you?”

    It is my name, Mr. Frog or rather first inital and last name. I just checked my drivers license and sure enough that is what it says.

  394. A herculean effort and worthy of much praise! I shared your article across my blogs and of course, linked them back to your amazing site! The fact that Al Gore faked these experiments thoroughly discredits both himself and the global warming scientists he represents. What people don’t understand is that scientists are PEOPLE first. They have their own motivations, ideals, and passions. Just as it is rare to find a truly honest person in general, it is likewise hard to find a truly honest scientist. People need to understand the idea that science, by nature, is always wrong. It always seeks to improve itself, correct past assumptions and make new discoveries in an effort to find the Truth. We, as a species, have only begun to scratch the surface of knowledge. To assume otherwise is complete foolishness. Any scientist who thinks they KNOW something and then proceeds to shove it down people’s throats- especially when it has a political agenda behind it- is to be suspect by all. Just because a lot of scientists say something is true doesn’t make it so. Example: they once believed the world was flat, that the sun revolved around it.

    The earth MAY be experiencing a temperature change due to man’s activities- or it MAY be a natural earth fluctuation like the scores of fluctuations it has experienced during ice ages, etc. People need to be more cautious when either supporting science theories or attempting to scorn them (although, this is always more fun…). Science has an important role in society, but it is not GOD.

  395. I’ve grown tired of the people responding here that are incapable of anything, beginning with “staying on topic” (which is NOT the same as the Pavlovian responses to triggers we see here.

    But one of the few of the many repetitious comments that I read before I dumped the lot (and staunched the flow) took offense somehow at the notion that a high school physics class could handle the experiment.

    When I went through high-school in the 1950s we did experiments (and understood them) that were far more complex. (We probably did something like this one in Junior high school,)

    My girls going through high school in the 1980s were doing experiments on sealed self-sustaining biological systems–among some of the simpler ones.

    [I'll not be back to this thread, it there is something that you must say to me, I'll be at an email address consisting of my name (less spaces) on Cox's network.]

  396. I think it can be shown to be faked in a much easier fashion. Looking at he split screen shots, compare the two sides background at the 38.6C level, there is a mark in exactly the same place on the background. This is the same thermometer shot at different times ,IMHO.

  397. R Gates Said:

    “There is no relationship between the errors of of the 101 video and anything related to Dr. Trenberth or the physics related to CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas.”

    No one said there was, but that is your specialty – Arguing over issues no one raised – to direct the coversation somwhere you think you can handle.

    The relationship is between AGW slappies who worship at Trenberths feet. Anyone who makes the slightes infraction to the dogma must, apparently apologise to the man.

  398. Brian H says:
    October 19, 2011 at 10:38 pm

    Yeah, I’d thought of tossing that into the conversation, noting that it wouldn’t be radiating much power. In fact, the entire “room”, being at room temperature, is already radiating in the correct spectrum. So simply setting up two IR-transparent containers with differing CO2 levels should work. If the “basic physics” is correctly posited, of course.

    As Dave Springer would say “BINGO”. However the need to eliminate IR absorbing glass would remain. I do not like the idea of placing the IR heat source into the measured space. There are no pure IR heat sources, that would not conduct heat from it’s surface to the ambient CO2 and then convect it throughout the jar atmos. Surely, providing a IR transparent window is not that difficult or expensive! I also think the temperature sensor should be shielded from the direct IR source.

    There seems to be very little effort from the science community to experimentally prove some of these fundamental first principles. I wonder why? I would certainly like to see some definitive experiments demonstrated. GK

  399. Ken Harvey says:
    October 20, 2011 at 7:36 am

    What a pity it is that the reputation of the Nobel Prize has been sullied by the likes of Gore.

    They gave a Nobel to a purely political UN organization (IPCC + Gore), and another to a president before he had yet done anything (and even if I liked the guy I would have been appalled). Now, the IPCC has pretty much been exposed as a fraud, and the president has completely sullied the words “hope” and “change”.
    Seriously, if I were to win a Nobel peace prize I’d probably jump off a bridge.

  400. Did you consider that the greater mass of C02 compared to Air could be responsible for the fact that the CO2 both heated and cooled more slowly, given the same heat transfer rate?

  401. Henry@Larry Sheldon
    In fact, I suspect you of making one of those very “off topic” remarks that you are complaining about by one of your your alter ego’s callled “in awe”. The in-fighting between the sceptical science bloggs and what they will do to drag each other through the mud continues to amaze me.
    Never mind all of them, Watts is the best!!

  402. glacierman says:
    October 20, 2011 at 11:34 am
    R Gates Said:

    “There is no relationship between the errors of of the 101 video and anything related to Dr. Trenberth or the physics related to CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas.”

    No one said there was, but that is your specialty – Arguing over issues no one raised – to direct the coversation somwhere you think you can handle.
    ——–
    it wasn’t me who brought up Dr. Trenberth in the context of this particular post. Anthony proved that Anchor Hocking glass blocks infrared radiation. Why would there be a need to mention Dr. Trenberth at all?

  403. R Gates

    good grief, I thought it was a simple question. :)

    If you drew a trend line of warming, at which year in the past would it end up (eg Like in Giss). At which point along the way could it be dubbed ‘natural’ and at which point ‘man made?
    Thanks
    tonyb

  404. R. Gates;
    it wasn’t me who brought up Dr. Trenberth in the context of this particular post. Anthony proved that Anchor Hocking glass blocks infrared radiation. Why would there be a need to mention Dr. Trenberth at all?>>>

    1. You responded to the suggestion that you would have to apologize to Trenberth if you answered my questions by insisting the matter had nothing to do with Trenberth. If you have the time to make that point, why don’t you have the time to answer my questions? Do you have a different reason for not answering my questions? If so, what is it?
    2. Yes, Anthony proved that Anchor Hocking glass blocks IR. He ALSO proved that:
    A) Gore faked the experiment.
    B) Gore faked the results.
    C) Had the experiment been done as illustrated is could not possibly have produced the results claimed.
    3. I said that I would wager that had the experiment been conducted as illustrated, that the results would not be as illustrated. You responded that you would take that wager, and asked me how much.

    Your avoidance of the questions asked in this and other threads, blatant attempt to distance yourself from Gore after repeatedly defending him, the experiment, and insisting that actually doing the experiment would yield the results Gore showed, welching on the wager you instantly accepted, and now trying to redefine the results of the experiment to what amounts to about 2% of what Anthony demonstrated raises a question in my mind:

    Do you believe that you are fooling anyone other than yourself?

    Your stream of avoidance, doublespeak and unresponsiveness to legit questions is destroying your credibility, and that of the CAGW meme better than any skeptic could on their own. Congrats.

  405. Davidmhoffer said:

    “You responded to the suggestion that you would have to apologize to Trenberth if you answered my questions by insisting the matter had nothing to do with Trenberth. If you have the time to make that point, why don’t you have the time to answer my questions.”

    R Gates actions provide the answer. More important to maintain the meme…..and therefore not have to worry about Trenberth being upset.

  406. >> The video was shot in Brooklyn. He may have assumed that due diligence was being done by Gore and his video producers.

    Still, this is “The Science Guy”. He ought to have seen the same problem you did, given his background as “The Science Guy”, if he gave enough of a rat’s patootie to actually do anything but parrot what he was told.

    i.e., “Some ‘Science’ Guy.”

  407. All I can say is great work well done. Anything else I can think of saying after that is just; thank you very, very much.

    Oh, and is it possible that “Al G” accidentally used one 100 Watt and one 150 Watt bulb in his experiment?
    From now on I guess he’ll be more careful as he probably realizes that Watt’s watching him.

    I am now looking forward to the next experiment, which hopefully, will be to replicate John Tyndall’s effort to prove that LWIR radiation can warm CO2, in other words put a thermometer in the tube into which he introduced CO2.
    I have tried to replicate this particular experiment myself but have so far failed to prove that the CO2 in question make any temperature gains. Then again, as I was, at the time, only interested in proving “a point” to myself and did not bother to prove, first of all, that the electromagnetic signal we now call LWIR radiation was passing through the tube, or into the vessel, in the first place. – I just assumed that it did. Therefore I must admit that my “homemade” rock salt plug I used may have had “a few shortcomings” to say the least

  408. NetDr says:
    October 20, 2011 at 7:25 am

    “Now I am not certain the CO2 causes any warming at all.”

    Not in your sealed jar. But in nature convection controls maximum temperature in the daytime, so maximum temperatures depend only on the weight of air above a square inch of surface, which is 14.7 pounds. At night convection goes away and radiation via the “clear window” from either the surface or cloud tops sets the cooling rate. CO2 does restrict the clear window somewhat, so the rate of cooling will be reduced and the minimum temperatures will rise somewhat, especially at high latitudes. We hope the polar bears can deal with this very small impact. The Inuit will do just fine.

    What is meant by the clear window is evident from the Wiki atmospheric transmission graphic.

    Its the blue color in the right-hand panel. CO2 infringes on the right side of the window. Another thing to note is that that transmission outside of the clear window is virtually zero which is fatal to the Trensberthian idea that CO2 raises the emission level to a higher, cooler altitude. In the opaque bands nothing is transmitted though there may be some incident radiation reflected. In the transparent bands radiation passes from the source unimpeded.

  409. Myrrh
    Some of what you say does not make sense to me.

    If visible light does not create heat, how come I can set fire to a piece of white card when I focus the visible light from the sun falling onto my magnifying glass into just a very small area?

    Then that leads to a wider question, If I divert all the visible light coming directly from the Sun onto my magnifying glass and focus that light into a tiny point on the card, why is there not a shadow cast by my magnifying glass?

  410. Hi Anthony: Great experiment. While the results don’t disprove the absorbing characteristics of infrared radiation by CO2, the experiment DOES disprove the claims by Al Gore and his sychophants who claim the temperature of CO2 in a jar will rise faster than plain air due to the radiation. In fact, I would call the Gore video fraudulent in its claims. Is that any surprise with this crowd, the way they have falsified real temperature records and exaggerate the skills of climate models?

    For fun I estimated the absorption coefficient of CO2 near 15 microns off of Peter Dietze’s graph ( I don’t have lab accurate data ) and came up with about 102 cm^2/g. Using that, in your CO2 filled jar, the 15 micron band would only have about a 2% transmission at the jar bottom vs. 92% in the jar with 690 ppmv CO2. It appears that the absorbed radiation near 15 microns in the CO2 jar is competing with the lower thermal conductivity coefficient of CO2 compared to air, and thus, in your experiment you were not able to measure any effect by the absorbed infrared radiation inside of the glass compared to the air jar with a higher thermal conductivity. This is interesting because it DOES, in my opinion, disprove AL Gore and Nye’s video, meaning they most likely had their results falsified to once again, boast incorrectly about the “powerful radiative effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.”

  411. “”””” LazyTeenager says:

    October 20, 2011 at 2:30 am

    ……………………………………..
    3. The use of infrared lamps is bogus as far as the atmospheric greenhouse effect is concerned. Just normal visible incandescents would do just as well, since in the actual green house effect the heating effect comes from the sun. “””””

    My oh my; how the atmospheric greenhouse effect (as distinct from the greenhouse greenhouse effect) has changed with the repetition.

    The AGHG effect doesn’t have anything to do with the sun. Well they often go out of their way to tell us it takes place at night.

    The AGHG effect starts with the warm earth surface; whose Temperature averages 288 Kelvins (according to Dr Trenberth and others) and that warm surface emits near black body (maybe gray) long wave infra-red radiation, in the spectral range from about 5.0 microns to 80.0 microns, and peaking at about 10 microns, and about 390 w/m^2 total radiant emittance.
    Some small portion of that wide spectrum in the spectral range from 13.5 to 16.5 microns, but centered on about 15 microns, gets captured by atmospheric CO2. Other GHGs grab their little pieces too, but let’s not digress too much. H2Opf course is not a greenhouse gas, but a feedback that amplifies the CO2 effect.
    The CO2 gets to oscillating in a bending mode as a result of this absorption, and while flexing its elbows, it bangs into other atmosphere molecules, and sets them buzzing around, thereby heating the atmosphere. The heated atmosphere (so they say) also bangs into the CO2 and sets it flexing again, until sometime it re-emits some 15 micron LWIR radiation, in ALL directions, and about half comes back down to earth and warms it up some more.

    That is the AGHG effect as it is taught; Now not everybody believes that; but pretty much everyone believes that the sun is not involved in that exchange since it all happens at night.

    Now yes of course, it is the sun that warmed the earth surface in the first placel but let’sw not let simple facts get in the way of a good story.

    So NO, the sun or a visible incandescent lamp will not do, because they both emit totally different energy spectra from the earth’s 288 K surface. Besides Myrrh says visible light won’t heat anything; and if anybody knows it surely is him..

    Remeber the AGHG effect warms up the planet at night, and the sun warms it during the day; well so they say.

  412. zac says:
    October 20, 2011 at 3:17 pm
    Myrrh
    Some of what you say does not make sense to me.

    If visible light does not create heat, how come I can set fire to a piece of white card when I focus the visible light from the sun falling onto my magnifying glass into just a very small area?

    Infrared light is invisible..

    “Convex lenses produce an image of an object at infinity at their focus; if the sun is imaged, much of the visible and infrared light incident on the lens is concentrated into the small image. A large lens will create enough intensity to burn a flammable object at the focal point. Since ignition can be achieved even with a poorly made lens, lenses have been used as burning-glasses for at least 2400 years.[16] A modern application is the use of relatively large lenses to concentrate solar energy on relatively small photovoltaic cells, harvesting more energy without the need to use larger, more expensive, cells. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convex_lens#Types_of_simple_lenses

    However…, lasars of visible light can also burn if the intensity is increased. Which is a whole other subject and doesn’t mean that visible light suddenly becomes capable of moving the molecules in the paper. Visible light may well be ‘highly energetic’, but it is also ‘highly tiny’.. Careful that you include the scale of the wavelengths, AGW has this tendency to chuck out properties so you don’t think beyond the meme ‘energy = heat’. Scale of an electromagnetic wave is a property, just as heavier than air is a property of carbon dioxide, some waves are miles long and big as buildings, gamma rays are a million, or is it a billion? times smaller than visible, you’ll have to check, near infrared, non-thermal, microscopic, thermal big as a pin head. Visible affects matter on an electron scale, not on the larger atomic/molecule.

    Then that leads to a wider question, If I divert all the visible light coming directly from the Sun onto my magnifying glass and focus that light into a tiny point on the card, why is there not a shadow cast by my magnifying glass?

    Dunno, isn’t there? At a guess I’d say it has something to do with the visible reflecting back off some of the surface, angle of incidence and all that, at the boundary layer between air and glass and refraction within the glass outside of concentrated spot which will then exit at different angles – the interference of these waves could perhaps negate any shadow.

  413. George Smith: Your explanation is wrong. If there is any effect by increased CO2 in the atmosphere with respect to ground temperature, it is beacuse of the coupling effect of the increased absorption in the atmosphere as concentration goes up AND solar insolation on the day side. At night, it makes no difference, for water vapor and cloud absorption CONTROL nocturnal radiation ALWAYS to a higher surface temperature.

    It is also incorrect to call water vapor a “feedback” that is positively modulated by CO2. If there is any feedback at all, it should be in the opposite direction, as the upper troposphere cools by adding more CO2. That is a LIMITING factor to increasing water vapor and that is a problem for those who believe the AGW orthodoxy. The modeling has failed in making such positive feedback projections and the opposite seems to be the case. This negates most of the claimed forcings by “climate models”…….that are a strange concept in science to begin with in their current construction.

  414. A p.s. to “AGW has this tendency to chuck out properties so you don’t think beyond the meme ‘energy = heat’”. There’s a good description of the different electronic transitions which light effects on the wiki page on translucency – if you can’t find it I’ll fetch for you, time for bed.. But for example, photosynthesis is a chemical creation of sugars from visible energy, not the creation of heat, so other possible effects have to taken into consideration. (Some 90% of the oxygen in our atmosphere is produced by photosynthesis in the oceans, which is plant life using the energy of blue and red wavelengths.)

  415. Has anyone noticed, that the atmosphere of a greenhouse is actually high in oxygen and low in carbon dioxide?

  416. Did you correct for the effect of the studio lighting, frequently it is very bright?

    Also, they may have gotten impatient waiting for the CO2 container to come equilibrium temperature before starting the experiment and warmed the container to speed it up. That would have given it a “thermal inertia” that would continue to warm the CO2 and produced the observed rise. ;)

  417. Anthony, your great post would hold considerably more credibiity in our Atmospheric Sciences Dept if you would correct the error about how a real greenhouse works in Step 3. As has been stated several times in comments, a greenhouse primarily heats up by limiting convection as hot air is unable to escape upwards through the glass ceiling and be replaced by cooler air aloft.

    -Mark A

  418. Ken Harvey said;

    “What a pity it is that the reputation of the Nobel Prize has been sullied by the likes of Gore.”

    Well……. The reputation of the Nobel Prize was tarnished quite a bit when the “doctor” that “perfected” the Lobotomy operation was awarded one for his efforts!

    Before his ”breakthrough” a lobotomy required a full operating room with anesthetics etc. The award of his Nobel Prize was based on making the lobotomy “simple” I.E. it could be done easily sans anesthetics with a “surgical” instrument that was nothing more than a FANCY screwdriver that was “inserted” above the eyeballs of the unlucky recipient of the operation. Additional details ommited in the name of good taste.

    I for one would REFUSE a Nobel Prize in the unlikely event I was selected for one.

    Cheers, Kevin.

  419. Matthew says:
    October 20, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    Has anyone noticed, that the atmosphere of a greenhouse is actually high in oxygen and low in carbon dioxide?

    At night that switches around but still a net gain in oxygen overall. Also one of the reasons that the CO2 levels can change over a wheat field by 400ppm depending on when the sample is taken.

  420. climatereason says:
    October 20, 2011 at 12:56 pm
    R Gates

    good grief, I thought it was a simple question. :)

    If you drew a trend line of warming, at which year in the past would it end up (eg Like in Giss). At which point along the way could it be dubbed ‘natural’ and at which point ‘man made?
    Thanks
    tonyb
    —————
    I have no idea, but I doubt it is that clear cut. There would never be a single year, but rather a period of years or even decades when trends begin to appear that can’t be explained by any known forcings. At first, natural variability would mask the warming trend in any individual year or even over a decade, but eventually the longer term forcing of CO2 at continually rising levels would overwhelm shorter term effects like ENSO and solar cycles. At least this is what the climate models appear to show.

  421. Myrrh;
    However…, lasars of visible light can also burn if the intensity is increased. Which is a whole other subject and doesn’t mean that visible light suddenly becomes capable of moving the molecules in the paper. >>>>

    1. Yes it does.
    2. High intensity burns just like you said, proving that visible light carries energy capable of heating.
    3. You demand proof, provide the proof yourself, and then insist that it isn’t proof.
    4. This is called being willfuly blind. An apt description in this case since if visible light was incapable of affecting the molecules in the back of your eyeballs, you’d be unable to see. If the intensity gets too high, it will burn the backs of your eyeballs out, and you really will be blind. Which is why you don’t look directly at the sun, even through glass which blocks infrared.

  422. R. Gates says:

    “I have no idea…”

    Truer words were never spoken. Thanx for your baseless opinion about always-inaccurate computer models.

  423. “”””” Chuck Wiese says:

    October 20, 2011 at 5:51 pm

    George Smith: Your explanation is wrong. If there is any effect by increased CO2 in the atmosphere with respect to ground temperature, it is beacuse of the coupling effect of the increased absorption in the atmosphere as concentration goes up AND solar insolation on the day side. At night, it makes no difference, for water vapor and cloud absorption CONTROL nocturnal radiation ALWAYS to a higher surface temperature. “””””

    Chuck; perhaps you might look up “tongue-in-cheek” in some “dictionary of coloquialisms”.

    I can’t believe you took that post of mine seriously; I was just aping the AGW party line; which I find just as untenable as you do; so you evidently have not read very much of what I have posted at WUWT.
    In the event that there might be other readers who were also mislead; my sincere apologies.

    However, I find I can’t accept your premise that surface Temperatures will increase after sundown due to water vapor and clouds. I’d really like to see some recording themometer trace, showing surface Temperatures increasing after sunset, because of water vapor or clouds; in my experience it ALWAYS cools down after sunset; it NEVER warms up. (excepting of course the obvious case, where a totally different air mass moves in from a different warmer location)

    It is an earlier (much) warmer, and humid day that results in evening water vapor at higher altitudes, which subsequently forms high clouds, when it cools down to the dew point. The daytime surface conditions determine the evening temperature and cloud/humidity condition; NOT the other way round. NO high altitude cloud ever caused the surface Temperature to go UP at night.

  424. George: My apologies if you were jiving the other side.That wasn’t clear to me. In regards to nocturnal radiation, no, I was not stating that water vapor and clouds cause warming ( in general) at night. What I meant was that those two constituents ALWAYS absorb far more infrared radiation than CO2 alone, therefore, the nocturnal cooling because of them will always be LESS than CO2, meaning nocturnal temperatures are always HIGHER because of the vapor and clouds. But the process at night is still always COOLING.

    Sorry again for not getting your sarcasm. But I do like it:D

  425. R Gates

    I find it refreshing for you to admit that ‘you have no idea on my climate question.

    I am perfectly happy for you to date the warming to around a decade. 1900? 1920? Much earlier?
    tonyb

  426. >>
    CodeTech says:
    October 20, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    Seriously, if I were to win a Nobel peace prize I’d probably jump off a bridge.
    <<

    Before starting your freefall, you should donate your prize money to someone like Anthony. I’m sure he could use the funds better than the fishes.

    Jim

  427. davidmhoffer says:
    October 20, 2011 at 8:57 pm
    Myrrh;
    However…, lasars of visible light can also burn if the intensity is increased. Which is a whole other subject and doesn’t mean that visible light suddenly becomes capable of moving the molecules in the paper. >>>>

    1. Yes it does.
    2. High intensity burns just like you said, proving that visible light carries energy capable of heating.
    3. You demand proof, provide the proof yourself, and then insist that it isn’t proof.
    4. This is called being willfuly blind. An apt description in this case since if visible light was incapable of affecting the molecules in the back of your eyeballs, you’d be unable to see. If the intensity gets too high, it will burn the backs of your eyeballs out, and you really will be blind. Which is why you don’t look directly at the sun, even through glass which blocks infrared.

    Rubbish, I’ve watched the sun solar eclipses through glasses because they’re designed to block the infrared from burning your eyes. This is what burns the eyes, the lens of the eye acting like a magnifying glass heating the eyeball. You might get temporarily ‘blinded’ by the glare of light and that can happen when any bright light from any source hits the retina, a period of rest in black, cupping one’s hands over the eyes for example, will bring this back to normal. Anyone can look directly at the Sun, it’s only when it is too intense do we automatically turn away from the heat and light it’s producing. Watching too long or exposed too long to strong light and heat is a hazard for welders and any working in high heat furnace type areas – in these situations thermal can cook the eyeballs and UV, much tinier even than visible, is more of a danger too, working on the DNA level.

    Heat and Light are two different properties of electromagnetic waves and have different effects.

    Here:

    http://www.bibalex.org/Eclipse2006/SafeWithFilters.htm

    Observing Solar Eclipses with Filters

    A solar filter is an optical piece specially designed to reduce the glare of the Sun to a safe level for viewing and to block the harmful solar ultraviolet and infrared radiations.

    Why do those pro the science fiction memes always come back with statements like 4. that are such a lie from the way they jumble stuff up? Either because they know the difference and want to deliberately confuse or because they don’t know the difference, and are merely repeating misdirection about this.

    I’ve asked for proof that visible light from the Sun heats land and oceans as claimed in the AGWScience Fiction Incs energy budget, KT97 and ilk.

    Visible light does not burn. Only by artifically increasing intensity can it do damage and that more often than not in lasers is from the infrared element. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_pointer

    You’ve no sense of scale. Or rather, you and your ilk can only provide arguments based on no sense of scale and out of context analogies because you have to deliberately avoid having to deal with the physical fact that visible light energy can be used in different ways, such as chemical, fluorescence, which are not the creation of heat and this destroys the simplistic unscientific claim that visible light from the Sun heats land and oceans.

    Prove it, show exactly how visible light from the Sun heats land and oceans or stop trying to confuse the new to the subject. All you’re showing by your avoidance is disingenuity.

    Visible light from the Sun doesn’t have the power to move molecules of rocks and water into vibration which is what heats up matter.

    It’s heat from the Sun which creates visible light, visible light is a product of heat.

    Visible light is so weak that it doesn’t have the energy to make big waves… :)

    Discuss..

    Enough, you can look up for yourself how visible light from the Sun interacts with matter, on an electron scale and as I’ve already described in above posts. These visible light waves are too small and too puny power to move the much bigger molecules of matter into vibration. These waves get bounced around the sky by the electrons of oxygen and nitrogen molecules, scattered when the electrons get pinged and bounce visible out the way it came in.

    If ‘visible light heats matter by being absorbed’ then the AGWSF claim is falsified because the atmosphere is not transparent to them, because these electrons absorb visible light before ejecting it, the molecules of oxygen and nitrogen should be hot! Water molecules won’t even let visible light in to play with its electrons. Visible light cannot move the water molecules into vibrational states which is how matter is heated up.

    Heat energy from the Sun is powerful enough to move molecules into vibration – this is thermal energy, heat, thermal infrared, the real energy from the Sun capable of heating land and oceans.

    This is bog standard basic difference between Light and Heat.

    You can continue to claim otherwise, but you can never find anything to prove it because such a proof doesn’t exist and the real mechanisms falsifying your claim are already standard knowledge in real world physics.

    So put up or shut up. You cannot keep claiming that visible light is heating up land and oceans when basic physics shows it can’t.

    You have to prove basic known physics wrong.

  428. You mean all those years I used NaCl blocks to run IR spectra because I thought glass was opaque to IR, I could have used glass? Dadgum, I should have asked Bill Nye the Sinus Guy first. I thought everyone recognized that minor difficulty the Gore experiment and didn’t mention it.

  429. losers. all this to prove what? get a life. i don’t care what gore says, but even if i did hate what he says, i wouldn’t spend days trying to prove a little fluff video wrong. and all these sycophantic commentators. vomit.

  430. Myrrh,

    Some advice. Instead of telling everyone why you understand physics more than they do, go down to your local university, wherever that is, go to the physics or chemistry department, and find a competent spectroscopist. Ask them.

    Before you go you may want to look up the Franck-Condon principle.

  431. Myrrh;
    You might get temporarily ‘blinded’ by the glare of light and that can happen when any bright light from any source hits the retina, a period of rest in black, cupping one’s hands over the eyes for example, will bring this back to normal>>>

    I had planned to just ignore whatever tirade you responded with, but you said something so incredibly stupid that it is a danger to others.

    If you get “temporarily” blinded by glare from the sun or a welding arc, you MAY recover. Most people in most cases in fact recover because their eye lids shut fast enough to prevent greater damage. HOWEVER, there is the potential for minute permanent damage that builds up as a consequence of multiple exposures and will become significant in its total.

    FURTHER, if you over ride your instinctive response close your eyes and look away and stare at the sun or a welding arc for an extended period of time, YOU WILL BECOME PERMANENTLY BLIND.

    THIS WILL HAPPEN EVEN IF YOU LOOK THROUGH CLEAR GLASS THAT BLOCKS INFRARED 100%.

    Glass that also filters visible light, such as the protective glass in a welder’s helmet, blocks not only infrared, but a huge portion of the visible light spectrum as well, allowing through a small enough amount of light to see by, but not enough to be harmfull.

    Your notion that visible light only carries energy if it is “artificially” concentrated is ridiculous and pathetic. A magnifying glass bends visible light. It blocks infrared. If you adjust the angle and distance of the magnifying glass correctly, all the visible light passing through ther glass can be focused on as very tiny point on a surface. The amount of energy going through the glass doesn’t get “artificially” enhanced. It gets REDUCED. Some frequencies are reflected and some absorbed. Despite that, what does get through is carrying energy. If the glass was flat, and 50 watts passed through a ten square centimeter piece of glass, what you would “feel” on the other side would be about 5 watts/cm2. You’d barely notice it. Use a magnifying glass though, and use it to bend all the light rays going through to meet at a focal point, and that 50 watts is now warming up an area as small as 1/1000th the area of the flat glass. So that tiny dot on the surface of some material is now being exposed to 50 watts, but it is now 50,000 watts/cm2.

    There is not one single extra watt added to the light by the magnifying glass, in fact it strips out the energy from infrared, reflects some, and so reduces the amount that gets through. There is no additional energy added by the magnifying glass, no “artificial” emhancement, just the energy from the visible light all being focused on a very small area, causing it to heat up and even catch on fire, and it is the result of the energy carried by visible light.

    Dispute that if you want, but lay off the idiocy regarding recovering from staring at the sun or a welding arc because if someone takes you at your word you could well wind up being responsible for their permanent blindness.

  432. So we have Herschel discovering invisible infrared coming out of a glass prism that has sunlight directed on it, but time and time again it is stated that glass blocks Infrared. There seems to be a contradiction here. Herschel also discovered that visible light and invisible light below that of red also produces heat when it is directed on the blackened bulb of a thermometer.

    I’m finding it a tad hard to find definitive answers on this using Google but am getting the impression that sunlight contains near infrared (according to Wiki on the greenhouse effect) which will pass through glass (TV remotes/ camera active focus as examples). When the sunlight hits the Earth’s surface it heats up the surface and that heat energy produces far Infrared of a much longer wavelength and that will not pass through glass, in fact glass then becomes an insulator as far as Infra red heat transmission is concerned. This then would also make Anthony quite correct with his greenhouse diagram.

    Am I on the right track?

  433. R. Gates : “Or simply do the experiment that the BBC did”

    But the purpose of this experiment was to replicate Al Gores alleged ‘experiment’

  434. According to the Al Gore principle of CO2 warming we’d each save a bundle on winter heating cost by putting a glass bubble around our house and filling it with CO2. Perhaps he should try it first as another experiment and then let us know how it worked out…

  435. davidmhoffer says on October 21, 2011 at 5:08 am:
    “THIS WILL HAPPEN EVEN IF YOU LOOK THROUGH CLEAR GLASS THAT BLOCKS INFRARED 100%.”

    Good posting there – but you’ll do even better if you separate IR short wave (IRSW) coming from the Sun from the so calleed IRLW (IR long wave) that is said to come from the earth’s surface (as well as from all other objects in the earth’s system).
    If clear glass is capable of blocking IRSW radiation 100%, we would not have a green-house effect even in conventional green-houses

  436. “”””” zac says:

    October 21, 2011 at 7:09 am

    So we have Herschel discovering invisible infrared coming out of a glass prism that has sunlight directed on it, but time and time again it is stated that glass blocks Infrared. There seems to be a contradiction here. “””””

    I know it is fashionable at WUWT; lets make that “traditional” to conform to Myrrh’s modern lingo; to simply ignore very well known material properties and make up our own “traditional ideas about them.

    So here’s some actual hard cold factual data for some real “glass” materials, actually various tpes of quartz and Corning Pyrex type glasses, and also “lime” glass, aka “battleship plate” (junk glass) and “lead” glass, aka “Crystal”.

    Quartz is just about the worst of all so-called “infra-red” optical materials, transmitting only to about 4.2 microns in the IR. crystalline, and fused quartz transmit about 90% (2mm sample) to 3.6 microns, 80% to 4.2 microns, drops to 255 by 4.8 microns. Suprasil, Optosil, and ultrasil, three specialy quartz types have a big crash hole from 2.6 to 3.0 microns, dropping to under 5% transmission before rebounding to near 90% for 3.1 to 3.6 microns..
    The various types of Corning glasss Pyrex 7740, Nonex 7720, and Corex D start absorbing at 2.2 microns, down to 50-60% transmission at 2.8 microns, then dropping from 3.3 microns to 4.0 microns down to around 20% Lime glass is similar to pyrex; lead glass crystal still has 60% transmission at 4.2 microns. All these are total transmission of 2 mm samples so they include about 8-10% reflection losses from the two surfaces.

    Many glasses do have a water hole around 1.0 microns; but almost any glass can transmit out to 2.0 microns’ which covers the bulk of the solar spectrum energy; but definitely excludes much beyong 5.0 microns so they transmit virtually NO LWIR relative to the climate scene which is the 5.0 to 80.0 micron range.

    In fact the only two common materials that transmit out to 80 microns are Diamond (0.25 to 85 microns) and CsI, Cesium Iodide, (0.25-80 microns).

    Quite a lot of IR materials transmit over the 20-20 micron range in the middle of the climatism spectrum.
    If you look in your standard college diamond text book, you will see that Type II-a diamond has the best known thermal conductivity at around 30 Watts /degC /cm at around room Temperatures, and about 100 at 100 Kelvin Temp.
    A more informative way to put it is 30 W/squ.cm for a 1 deg C per cm Temperature gradient, which is the same thing as 3 kW/m^2 for a 1 deg C / m Temperature gradient.

    That’s an interesting number; for type II-a diamond to conduct 1362 W/m^2, as in the TSI input rate to earth, you would need a 0.454 deg C per metre Temperature gradient to drive heat to earth through diamond at the TSI rate.
    It’s about 150 billion metres from the sun to earth, so you would need about 68 billion degrees Temperature difference from sun to earth to conduct 1362 W/m^2 of “heat” from the sun to the earth, through a one square metre diamond heat pipe. And actually its much worse than that, because of the inverse square law, so the temperature gradiant would have to rise toward the sun, and the required driving Temperature difference would be greater.

    That’s why I suggested to Myrrh and his traditional memephobes, that earth gets essentially NO heat from the sun; you can’t even get anything much through the best thermal conductor material we know of.

    But you folks are welcome to come up with a more efficient heat transport mechanism that solid conduction.

  437. Cheers Wayne

    I ended up reading all of the thread you linked to, I had no idea how political and money making global warming is.

  438. Anthony: Here is another caveat to your experiment that dumps additionally on Gore and Nye the “science” guy. If you follow up the absorbing calculations I did with some energy ones, you really find a huge mouse hole in the truth of the Nye and Al Gore video.

    Using a spectral calculator, the change in the IR flux from the glass jars would be 20.73 Wm-2 going from 70 degF to 108.2 degF over the range of 13-17 microns, 20.32 Wm-2 is the amount absorbed in the CO2 jar if 98% of that flux is absorbed by CO2. Given the area of the glass jars, that reduces to only 2.31 Watts of energy. The specific heat of CO2 at constant volume interpolated from tables gives 670 JKg-1K-1, You have about a liter of CO2 in your CO2 jar, so the specific heat is then reduced to 29.48 JK-1, which in the case of the absorbed energy near 15 microns of 2.31 Watts, 2.31 J/29.48 JK-1 = .078K or .14 degF owing to absorbed radiation near 15 microns. Given the the spectral calculator is a Planck emission number at the specified wavelength interval, the actual available energy for CO2 to absorb is slightly less than this figure beacuse the absorption curve is more Lorentzian shaped.In the end, the .14 degF temperature increase from CO2 IR radiation would make no difference, because the heating of the jars are what the equilibrium temperature of the gases inside are trying to obtain.

    Regardless, it is quite clear that the temperature change inside the CO2 jar came almost excusively from thermal conductivity of the heating jar that is absorbing most of the IR flux from the heat lamps, not from the small amount of additional infrared radiation absorbed by the CO2 itself. Given these numbers, it is impossible to create a set up like you or Nye and Gore did and have the result show that the CO2 in a jar vs. plain air will have it’s temperature rise faster and farther beacuse of CO2′s ability to absorb infrared radiation at the specified wavelengths. The Nye and Gore video had to have been faked or done incorrectly to exaggerate the effect of CO2.

  439. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 21, 2011 at 3:52 am
    Myrrh says:
    October 21, 2011 at 3:25 am
    You cannot keep claiming that visible light is heating up land and oceans when basic physics shows it can’t.

    Herschel discovered infrared and showed in the process that visible light heats:

    http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/classroom_activities/herschel_experiment.html

    see also: http://home.znet.com/schester/calculations/herschel/index.html

    Shrug, since visible light isn’t capable of moving molecules into vibrational states, AS WE NOW UNDERSTAND IN REAL PHYSICS, all that was being measured in terms of temperature in the thermometer was from thermal infrared.

    http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/classroom_activities/herschel_example.html

    Yeah right, put thermometers in an enclosed box to measure thermal infrared heat spread.

    Wayne previously suggested a real experiment based on the known-well-to-modern-day physics properties of light and heat to test just how capable visible light was of raising the temp in thermometer. As explained above in real world applications photovoltaic creation of electricity from visible and plate capture of thermal infrared -

    we already know the difference between light and heat energies from the Sun,

    we already know in great detail how visible light from the Sun light works on electron level,

    we already know in great detail how thermal energy from the Sun works on atomic/molecular level,

    Visible light works on electron scale in electronic transitions which does not move molecules and not on the thermal infrared atomic/molecular scale of rotational/vibrational which is how matter heats up.

    What is so difficult to understand here? You’re supposedly a highly educated scientist and one would assume that gives you practice in rational, logical thinking on a daily basis.

    So, beginning from where we have got to now with real world knowledge,

    with real physics which knows that thermal infrared heats water and visible light doesn’t,

    as seen in the real world around us in countless applications such as photovoltaic cells and plate capture of light and heat, and water curtains to grab the thermal heat energy while allowing visible light to pass through in protecting fireman tackling great conflagrations, and in cooling bulbs in producing blue light for plant growth in greenhouses:

    Wayne suggested building a box, covering it with glass lid and circulating water over the top which captures thermal infrared but allows visible light to pass through, because in real world physics we know that water is a transparent medium for visible light.

    ………………………………………………………

    zac says:
    October 21, 2011 at 7:09 am
    So we have Herschel discovering invisible infrared coming out of a glass prism that has sunlight directed on it, but time and time again it is stated that glass blocks Infrared. There seems to be a contradiction here. Herschel also discovered that visible light and invisible light below that of red also produces heat when it is directed on the blackened bulb of a thermometer.

    As above my reply to Leif, all Herschel found was that there was an invisible heat source, and I don’t mean ‘all’ in any put down sense, it was a momentous discovery. But interpretation is only as good as knowledge of the subject allows. In the cold light of the modern day physics knowledge..

    I’m finding it a tad hard to find definitive answers on this using Google but am getting the impression that sunlight contains near infrared (according to Wiki on the greenhouse effect) which will pass through glass (TV remotes/ camera active focus as examples). When the sunlight hits the Earth’s surface it heats up the surface and that heat energy produces far Infrared of a much longer wavelength and that will not pass through glass, in fact glass then becomes an insulator as far as Infra red heat transmission is concerned. This then would also make Anthony quite correct with his greenhouse diagram.

    That diagram is based on the junk fictional science promoting AGW. Near infrared is not hot – the NASA page on traditional science explained it, ah, I’ve just realised when I went to the post I mentioned this before, that I gave the wrong URL for the post I was directing to, here’s what it should be:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/spencer-and-braswell-on-slashdot/#comment-711886

    from which the link to the NASA still teaching traditional physics page: http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/infrared.html

    which says:

    “Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.”

    Near infrared is akin to visible light and UV, reflective rather than absorptive. It is near infrared used in cameras to capture images on film which works on the same principle as normal visible light cameras, by capturing the infrared light reflecting off the subject. This is different from the thermal infrared cameras which read the amount of heat coming from a subject.

    In themselves UV, Visible and Nr IR are not hot, we cannot feel them, they are not the invisible thermal energy we do feel from the Sun. As explained on that NASA page:

    “Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared.”

    The main reason you’re finding it difficult to get definitive answers on google is because the teaching of real physics on this has been taken out of the education system. Which is my point here, and the proper URL linked post show how I found this. And because the science fiction memes promoting AGW which have been put into education don’t have any internal coherence; they simply take ‘sound bites’ from physics, taking laws out of context, claiming something has the property of another thing or that things have properties which they don’t have, and then mixing it all up – that’s why the arguments about this get so convoluted..

    What this science fiction has done is simply denied real world known physics so the important thing is to get back to this, to the real basics, which does have internal cohesion, the parts fit. For example, AGW science fiction has no need of such things as convection or the differences between properties in terms of weight and volume, it is one dimensional science produced to sell an idea; another ‘experiment to prove it’ is of opening a bottle of scent in a classroom and as the smell wafts across the room claiming this proves that carbon dioxide thoroughly mixes in the atmosphere. All the complicated real world physics is taken out, but this is complicated to explain because of that as it goes into differences of ideal gas/real gas and weight of molecules, and evaporation of water and alcohol and differences between Brownian motion and convection, and so on and on. (That’s why this experiment of Anthony’s is important, if they had real proof they wouldn’t need to fake experiments).

    Same with glass and infrared claims that it doesn’t go through, it obviously does, one can feel it for oneself through a window and instantaneously feel it disappear when a cloud passes, and there’s a whole industry devoted to producing windows for hot countries which keep the thermal out and let in the light. But again this has its complications because of this fictional meme is now so well ingrained, that ‘visible is a thermal energy’, that it takes a lot of effort on the part of someone believing this to get their mind out of this trap and distractions about greenhouses. That this is a fictional claim in the energy budget can be reduced to a simpler parameter, the difference between light and heat, though getting one’s head around it can still present problems… The difference between electronic transitions and atomic/molecular vibrations is standard physics. They only have to prove that visible light can heat water to convince me..

    ..and it’s here where everyone claiming that energy budget is real physics comes a cropper, because they cannot find anything in real physics which teaches this so there is no mechanism explained for it being able to do so. I suppose some might have to get to that point for themselves before they realise that there isn’t any real physical explanation for the claim. If there was there would be tons of material available proving this and giving real world examples of how it’s used in real life applications. But all you’ll find is how visible light is not a thermal energy, its main branch of science is optics, and all the applications that in real life work know this. As I gave the example between the different methods needing to be used to capture these very different energies through the creation of electricty in photovoltaic cells by using light energies and direct capture of infrared heat by metal plates.

    Am I on the right track?

    You have to bear in mind that the AGWSF energy budget, which has now been brainwashed into education, includes mid infrared which is a thermal energy. To avoid further distractions by this, and by discussion on how UV works etc., I try to limit this to the difference between visible light and thermal infrared. That covers the principles involved.

    The challenge is to provide real physical explanations showing ‘that visible heats water’, as I have shown from real physics in the simple differences of scale and properties on an electon/molecular level that it can’t. So far, as you can see from the examples above, all I get back is bluster and obfuscation and misdirection and straw men arguments, besides the ad homs. My challenge is for them to look for it.

    Because there is no proof of their claim in real physics, they can’t find anything.

    What they do with that information if and when it finally sinks in, is up to them.

  440. Unfortunately Myrrh, this statement

    “The challenge is to provide real physical explanations showing ‘that visible heats water’, as I have shown from real physics in the simple differences of scale and properties on an electon/molecular level that it can’t”

    is incorrect. It is in fact impossible to have an electronic transition (a.k.a. absorbing visible light) in a molecule, without an accompanying vibrational transition. Go and ask a spectroscopist. Since you are building your whole case on statements like this, then the argument collapses.

  441. “zac says:
    October 21, 2011 at 3:23 pm
    Cheers Wayne

    I ended up reading all of the thread you linked to, I had no idea how political and money making global warming is.”

    Interesting series of threads. Wish I could have found a penny inside :). Those some 10,000 comments in Ira Glickstein’s series of articles this spring was the culmination of my trek finding out what the heck has gone so very wrong with science behind this CAGW propaganda I hear daily. That’s when I finally found what exactly Trenberth had done in his cute and insidious graphics in the LWIR side. One sixth of his huge red arrow is real and could be termed (though I hate the term) back radiation but the rest is a pure figment. If you exchange and reworking the numbers all the energy flow properly gel. That is what I carried away from that set of articles.

    You know it is funny, Trenberth has admitted to the 65-66 W/m2 being real and correct, I read that month’s ago, not the 390-396 W/m2 claimed in his graphics huge red arrow but he refused to come clean and loudly publically. If he did everyone would have a clearer understanding of Earth’s energy flows. To me that’s very telltale of the money you are speaking of (can’t remember his corporation’s name).

    All of that is buried somewhere in those 10,000 comments across about 10 articles.

  442. Myrrh says:
    October 21, 2011 at 4:19 pm
    “Herschel discovered infrared and showed in the process that visible light heats”
    Shrug, since visible light isn’t capable of moving molecules into vibrational states, >/i>

    What Herschel found was that all thermometers showed an increase, including the ones only subjected to visible light.

  443. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    October 21, 2011 at 7:52 pm
    Unfortunately Myrrh, this statement

    “The challenge is to provide real physical explanations showing ‘that visible heats water’, as I have shown from real physics in the simple differences of scale and properties on an electon/molecular level that it can’t”

    is incorrect. It is in fact impossible to have an electronic transition (a.k.a. absorbing visible light) in a molecule, without an accompanying vibrational transition. Go and ask a spectroscopist. Since you are building your whole case on statements like this, then the argument collapses.

    Unfortunately you read into it what you want, I have spent rather a lot of effort of making the distinction between electronic transitions by invisible light, on an electron scale, and, atomic/molecular rotational/vibrational by thermal infrared. Visible light can move an electron (not always).

    Electronic transitions by visible light show first of all that the atmosphere isn’t transparent to this wavelength as claimed in AGWScience Fiction, the electron absorbs the energy and spits the light back out. That’s why we have a blue sky. Because visible light is bounced around the sky by the electrons of the molecules, that’s how puny visible light is. Visible light doesn’t even get to play with the electrons of the molecules of water, which in real life is a transparent medium for visible light, it get transmitted through without moving any of the electrons. It takes real power to move whole molecules of water and heat matter up, this is done by the invisible THERMAL INFRARED DIRECT FROM THE SUN.

    So, “The challenge is to provide real physical explanations showing ‘that visible heats water’, as I have shown from real physics in the simple differences of scale and properties on an electon/molecular level that it can’t”

    Now do you see what I was referring to? Good. Now take up the challenge. Prove that Visible Light heats land and oceans as per the junk energy budget claim. I have explained why it can’t on an electron/molecular level and why thermal infrared, which as NASA used to teach, is the heat we feel from the Sun can, because it moves the whole molecule. Show me the physics on an electron/molecular level which says Visible light heats water, or stop repeating this stupid fantasy claim.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 21, 2011 at 10:13 pm
    Myrrh says:
    October 21, 2011 at 4:19 pm
    “Herschel discovered infrared and showed in the process that visible light heats”
    Shrug, since visible light isn’t capable of moving molecules into vibrational states,

    What Herschel found was that all thermometers showed an increase, including the ones only subjected to visible light.

    ? Yeah, so? We know that visible light isn’t capable of doing this. So what’s really happening? What he found when moving away from the visible light bits is the temp went very much higher, that’s when he discovered that there is an INVISIBLE ray from the Sun which is capable of heating up matter considerably better than what he ASSUMED did visible light. He couldn’t have been measuring such a thing, on that scale he perhaps should have thought it through a bit better, but understandably, the discovery of invisible infrared must have overwhelmed further thinking about this. At the time is was ASSUMED that visible light from the Sun delivered the heat we feel, we now know better, at least, in world of real physics we do. What he was measuring was leakage of the thermal infrared, the heat energy direct from the Sun. Which this nonsense energy budget EXCLUDES.

    This is what has so infiltrated the education system that you get tons of these ridiculous pages incapable of teaching real physics, presenting instead garbled nonsense and faked experiments or experiments with nonsense fiction physics descriptions of what is going on – designed to confuse, from which no child can get a proper grasp of the physical world around us and these fictional science memes are now ubiquitous, even science experts in other fields take these for granted, why would they not? You may not find this appalling, I do. Until I found that AGW was a fictional physics I considered myself very lucky to be born at this time, the last century advances in our knowledge of the physical world around us is phenomenal. And NASA used to be a shining light of exploration, but now it teaches this fictional physics, teaches that infrared doesn’t even get to the surface of the Earth. Have you read the link I posted to my post where I compare before and now of NASA’s teaching? The quotes I gave a couple of posts back?

    Now to something astonishing. Background to is another AGWSF meme, about carbon dioxide, that it mixes thoroughly in the atmosphere and can’t be unmixed and that it stays up in the atmosphere accumulating for hundreds and even thousands of years, their ‘blanket’ trapping heat. I’ve had rather a lot of discussions on this, trying to explain that carbon dioxide is heavier than air and therefore will naturally always sink in the atmosphere unless work is being done to move it, and the carbon cycle in general. But this heavier than air thing is so contrary to what they are brainwashed by that they generally come up with such things as ‘then it would separate out in a layer at the bottom and we’d all be dead’, type of reasoning, you have to remember that their gases have no volume, no weight, their atmosphere is empty space, so, they can’t get their heads around heavier than air molecules. They think carbon dioxide is an ideal gas which diffuses at great speed through empty space.

    Last night I taped Stephen Fry’s QI (quite interesting) and when I played it back, after posting here, I watched it. He demonstrated that carbon dioxide was heavier than air in a very simple experiment which is still taught by traditional physics teachers, he poured the invisible carbon dioxide onto lit candles and put them out. Carbon dioxide being heavier than air displaces it, it displaced the oxygen required to keep the flames going.

    Some knew that it was carbon dioxide, there was surprise that it could be poured like a liquid. Gases are not called fluids in traditional physics for nothing.. The whole atmosphere around us is an ocean of fluid gas, and very heavy, pressing down a ton/sq foot, we’re all carrying that on our shoulders.. (scent wafting through a room has to move through that, not empty space).

    He really demonstated it very well, and an experiment that every child can do from ingredients and equipment from his own kitchen!

  444. mkelly October 20, 2011 at 11:01 am
    It is my name, Mr. Frog or rather first inital and last name. I just checked my drivers license and sure enough that is what it says.

    That doesn’t identify you. According to AnyWho.com, in Rhode Island alone there are 97 people with listed phone numbers, first initial M, and surname Kelly. If the distribution were uniform in the entire U.S., there would be about 30,000 M Kellys with listed phone numbers. The true figure is probably far short of that, since the 1990 census showed only 253,674 Kellys, but still there must be thousands of M Kellys.

  445. Myrrh invents his own physics. This is a remarkable achievement! Countless people labor under misconceptions, but there must be very, very few with misconceptions so elaborated as Myrhh’s.

  446. Myrrh
    I am finding this a tough one to find a black and white statement that visible light creates heat when it is ansorbed by a body. Getting back to Herschel, other than the link given earlier all the other references I come across merely say he discovered IR by accident as his control thermometer placed below the red beam heated up.

    From Wiki Main interactions with matter by electromagnetic radiation.
    Visible: Molecular electron excitation (including pigment molecules found in the human retina), plasma oscillations (in metals only).
    Near infrared: Molecular vibration, plasma oscillation (in metals only).
    Far Infrared: Plasma oscillation, molecular rotation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

    But the Solar adiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) states:
    Radiation at the longer visible and infrared wavelengths penetrates into the lower atmosphere, where the portion not reflected is partitioned between the troposphere and the Earth’s surface, and becomes a dominant term in the global energy

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/science/introduction.htm

    But a lot of the material at SORCE seems to be aimed at school children and that could just be a generalisation.

    Obviously visible light does have energy as that is what SORCE is measuring and the LASP Interactive Solar Irradiance Data Center (LISIRD) publishes the irradience data.

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/#

    But nowhere that I can find boldly states with no ambiguity, that visible light from the sun produces heat and how great that heat is when compared to near IR. Which I find strange given how topical global warming is at the moment. Sorry if this looks a bit messy, how are quotes, italics and such put into a post?

  447. Myrrh I have to correct an earlier post I made a few days ago. At long last the Sun has come out and I can comfirm that I was totally wrong about a magnifying glass focusing the sunlight falling onto it onto a card not producing a shadow. It does produce a shadow and to my eyes the shadow is about the same intensity as the stand it is mounted on. So I’m pretty happy to conclude that most of the light falling on the glass from the sun is now being directed into one tiny bright spot and the shadow is formed on the card around it because no direct sunlight is now falling in that area.

    Next, the Infrared remote control for the TV works perfectly OK when placed up to the magnifying glass and up to the max distance possible in this room. I also put a towel over the them to eliminate the possibily that the IR sigal was bouncing off the lens and then reflected back to the TV by the walls, so I am also pretty happy to conclude that near IR passes through glass with ease, so the statement that IR does not pass through glass is wrong unless it is qualified by specifying wavelengths .

    That bright dot in the middle of the card must be an area of boh visible light and invisible near IR that has fallen on the surface of the lens . Wrong time of the year where I am but what causes the card to scorch, intense IR + intense visible light or just intense IR?

  448. Myrrh says:
    October 22, 2011 at 2:18 am
    “Herschel discovered infrared and showed in the process that visible light heats”
    Shrug, since visible light isn’t capable of moving molecules into vibrational states,
    “What Herschel found was that all thermometers showed an increase, including the ones only subjected to visible light.”
    ? Yeah, so? We know that visible light isn’t capable of doing this.

    In spite of what you think you know, the temperatures did all go up. BTW, infrared photons have less energy than those of visible light.

  449. Leif – It’s too bad somebody can’t think up a very simple proof – some easily arranged experiment or common phenomenon – no theory required. I’ve been trying to think of something, but I come up blank.

  450. Smoking Frog says:
    October 22, 2011 at 8:13 am
    iLeif – It’s too bad somebody can’t think up a very simple proof – some easily arranged experiment or common phenomenon – no theory required.

    Herschel’s original experiment works fine.
    Herschel discovered infrared and showed in the process that visible light heats:

    http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/classroom_activities/herschel_experiment.html

    see also: http://home.znet.com/schester/calculations/herschel/index.html

  451. @Leif Svalgaard…

    Myrrh says:
    October 22, 2011 at 2:18 am
    “Herschel discovered infrared and showed in the process that visible light heats” Shrug, since visible light isn’t capable of moving molecules into vibrational states,
    “What Herschel found was that all thermometers showed an increase, including the ones only subjected to visible light.”
    ? Yeah, so? We know that visible light isn’t capable of doing this.
    In spite of what you think you know, the temperatures did all go up. BTW, infrared photons have less energy than those of visible light.

    I agree with Dr. Leif Svalgaard; visible light is considered into thermal radiation spectrum, i.e. radiation that can be transferred like heat or work. When visible light is absorbed by a system, it can be transformed into static energy that causes increase of the system’s temperature.

  452. Myrrh: If you are so convinced that visible light from the sun does not heat the earth, try taking a magnifying glass and focus the visible sunlight on it to a fine point onto a piece of paper. I’m sure you would agree that infrared radiation at any wavelength is opaque to glass, but the visible light will be transmitted through and can be concentrated by magnification on the other side.

    I’ll guarantee you within about 30 seconds, the magnified and focused visible light striking the paper will heat it rapidly to its combustion temperature and ignite a fire on it or burn a hole through it if it is dry enough. If you focus the visible sunlight on your skin, you will feel an immediate burning sensation.

    The color temperature of the sun is white .It is approximately 5300 K. Your eyes see in color beacuse the various objects and matter around you on the earth absorb specfic wavelengths of visible light and re-emit or reflect other wavelengths. The specific visible wavelengths that are absorbed and not re-emitted can and do cause electronic and vibrational transitions in atoms that cause a thermal reaction which is measured by change in temperature.

  453. Smoking Frog says:
    October 22, 2011 at 8:13 am
    Leif – It’s too bad somebody can’t think up a very simple proof – some easily arranged experiment or common phenomenon – no theory required.

    Simple theory works well here. Of the 1360 W/m2 hitting the Earth, 600 W/m2 is in the infrared [above 800 nm]. If we assume that only that heats the Earth, then we can calculate what temperature the Earth would have. It goes like this: The temperature without Greenhouse Effect is [S*(1-A)/4/5.671E-8]^(1/4) which for S=1360 and Albedo A=0.3 comes to 255K. The observed temperature is 288K, so the difference 33K is due to GHG [mostly H2O and CO2]. With Myrrh’s wrong physics [S=600] one gets 207K, for a Greenhouse Effect of 81K, so Myrrh becomes a very strong proponent of excessive Greenhouse effects.

  454. zac says:
    October 22, 2011 at 2:54 am
    Myrrh
    I am finding this a tough one to find a black and white statement that visible light creates heat when it is ansorbed by a body. Getting back to Herschel, other than the link given earlier all the other references I come across merely say he discovered IR by accident as his control thermometer placed below the red beam heated up.

    Yes, not just tough, impossible. That’s why I keep asking for the information… :) We’ve come a long way to understanding the physical world thanks to his lucky break! In painting such a moment is called a ‘happy accident’, when something you weren’t intending to do happens and it works, such as loading your brush with more paint than required for an effect and it turns out so much better than the effect you thought you wanted..

    From Wiki Main interactions with matter by electromagnetic radiation.
    Visible: Molecular electron excitation (including pigment molecules found in the human retina), plasma oscillations (in metals only).
    Near infrared: Molecular vibration, plasma oscillation (in metals only).
    Far Infrared: Plasma oscillation, molecular rotation
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum etc.

    Yes again, you’ll find tantalising bits to real physics, for example on that wiki page about near infrared “Physical processes that are relevant for this range are similar to those for visible light.” When you read about visible light there’s nothing in there about creating heat.. In other words, near infrared like visible is reflective rather than absorptive, and working on electronic transitional level rather than the bigger thermal, mid and longwave infrared; which they do give the processes by which these move the whole molecule to heat up, but don’t actually point out that’s what happens as a result: Mid – “Hot objects (black-body radiators) can radiate strongly in this range. It is absorbed by molecular vibrations, where the different atoms in a molecule vibrate around their equilibrium positions.” And Far – “This radiation is typically absorbed by so-called rotational modes in gas-phase molecules, by molecular motions in liquids, and by phonons in solids.”

    You’ll also find AGW slants and counterslants by commission as well as omission, it goes on to say about Far – “The water in the Earth’s atmosphere absorbs so strongly in this range that it renders the atmosphere effectively opaque.” :) Doesn’t reach Earth’s surface according to AGWSF.. But yeah, right, their usual sense of scale that c4%-6% (?) of the atmosphere water vapour is making the atmosphere so opaque to thermal because water is the great absorber of it that it doesn’t reach us, so, of course, can’t possibly have anything to do with directly heating the oceans and land – but note the stress on ‘water so strongly absorbs’ and contrast with visible light spiel which talks only of its use in giving our world colour and form. Sigh, it’s pig’s ear pretending to be a silk purse trying not to be a pig’s ear.

    So that’s what you’ll find a lot of, real facts presented just off giving proper context, you have to do further research to find out what it means about visible light and electonic transitions impinging on electrons versus thermal, mid and longwave, moving molecules into vibrational/rotational states and kinetic energy before you realise that visible light can’t do what thermal can. And of course, then looking into optics, you find that visible is transmitted through water which really is a transparent medium for it, because of this it can’t even operate on an electronic transition process, let alone heat the whole molecule of water which is the AGWSF claim – and that teaches ‘because blue visible penetrates deeper it heats the water deeper down’.

    But nowhere that I can find boldly states with no ambiguity, that visible light from the sun produces heat and how great that heat is when compared to near IR. Which I find strange given how topical global warming is at the moment. Sorry if this looks a bit messy, how are quotes, italics and such put into a post?

    Not as messy as some of mine where I do put in italics and blockquotes.. Italics, bold and such are in angle brackets enclosing i and /i etc., click on the Test option top of page for this and more info.

    It’s now practically impossible for those who do know the differences to spell this out without ambiguity. Teachers in schools have to be wary how they teach such basics if they know them. Lots of examples from discussions among them and students who failed to get into courses because they didn’t agree the science was settled. Those gravitating towards applied sciences will finally get to teachers who sort this out, but for the majority it will be living in an impossible world where ‘shortwave light heats up matter and creates thermal infrared and the thermal energy we feel from the Sun or incandescent lightbulb is visible light and thermal infrared direct from the Sun doesn’t reach us, somehow it disappears en route’. It’s hard to believe we’ve gained and lost so much in such a short time.

  455. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 22, 2011 at 7:14 am
    Myrrh says:
    October 22, 2011 at 2:18 am
    Leif: “Herschel discovered infrared and showed in the process that visible light heats”

    Myrrh: Shrug, since visible light isn’t capable of moving molecules into vibrational states,

    Leif: “What Herschel found was that all thermometers showed an increase, including the ones only subjected to visible light.”

    Myrrh: ? Yeah, so? We know that visible light isn’t capable of doing this.

    Leif: In spite of what you think you know, the temperatures did all go up. BTW, infrared photons have less energy than those of visible light

    And you avoid the point I’m making. Just what were they measuring?

    We know in real world physics that visible light works on the sub atomic level of electrons, electronic transitions where it isn’t in a transparent medium to it such as water. This does not move the whole molecule into vibrational states which is how something heats up in the real world. We know this. Tried and tested and used for many decades in countless real world applications. Moreover, since visible light is absorbed by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in our atmosphere before they bounce it back out (reflection/scattering) – where is the heat created by this shown in the AGWSF energy budget?

    Junk science remains junk science regardless amount of obfuscation directed against preventing rational examination.

    It hasn’t taken zac long to come to asking the same questions I came to:

    “But nowhere that I can find boldly states with no ambiguity, that visible light from the sun produces heat and how great that heat is when compared to near IR. Which I find strange given how topical global warming is at the moment.”

    So where should we look for this information which should be basic to explaining the ‘energy budget’ since you generic never produce it when asked?

    How does visible light heat the molecules of water of Earth’s oceans?

  456. Nasif Nahle says:
    October 22, 2011 at 9:17 am
    @Leif Svalgaard…

    Myrrh says:
    October 22, 2011 at 2:18 am
    “Herschel discovered infrared and showed in the process that visible light heats” Shrug, since visible light isn’t capable of moving molecules into vibrational states,
    “What Herschel found was that all thermometers showed an increase, including the ones only subjected to visible light.”
    ? Yeah, so? We know that visible light isn’t capable of doing this.
    In spite of what you think you know, the temperatures did all go up. BTW, infrared photons have less energy than those of visible light.

    …………
    I agree with Dr. Leif Svalgaard; visible light is considered into thermal radiation spectrum, i.e. radiation that can be transferred like heat or work. When visible light is absorbed by a system, it can be transformed into static energy that causes increase of the system’s temperature.

    That it is so considered is an AGWScience Fiction meme. In traditional well known tried and tested and used in countless applications visible is Light not Heat. You can consider it as thermal as you want, but it is incapable of moving whole molecules into vibrational states which is how molecules of matter get heated because it is not a thermal energy, it doesn’t have the power to do this. The junk energy budget claims that shortwaves (Light) heat the Earth’s land and oceans and that thermal infrared (Heat), the real heat energy we feel as heat direct from the Sun, doesn’t play any part in directly heating land and oceans. This is simply nonsense, garbage in will get you garbage out.

    Prove that visible light can raise the temperature of water as per the claim. If you can’t, then you have to take it out of your energy budget.

  457. Leif Svalgaard says:
    The observed temperature is 288K, so the difference 33K is due to GHG [mostly H2O and CO2].

    Good science requires that we distinguish between what is proven and what is theory, before we speak in absolutes. The difference is due to GHG according to specific theories. Other theories attribute other causes.

    For example: Wikipedia says the “greenhouse effect” in real greenhouses is due mainly to convection, and radiative transfer has only a minor role. The EPA says that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is due to the same causes as in real greenhouses, so according to these sources, the 33K must mainly be due to convection, and GHG plays only a minor role.

  458. Chuck Wiese says:
    October 22, 2011 at 10:14 am

    I’ve already addressed most of what you’ve posted.

    The specific visible wavelengths that are absorbed and not re-emitted can and do cause electronic and vibrational transitions in atoms that cause a thermal reaction which is measured by change in temperature.

    And as I’ve already said. Visible light from the Sun works on an electronic transitional level, not capable of moving atoms and molecules into vibration, therefore, incapable of heating them. Show me exactly how visible light from the Sun heats water.

  459. Smokey, I’ve already said that lasers can be adjusted for intensity, just as using a magnifying glass alters intensity. Green light is not a thermal energy any more than is UV which we cannot feel as thermal but which can burn our skin, UV works on the DNA level, burning of the skin is a chemical reaction as much as plants using visible energy to create sugars is a chemical effect. Visible does not move molecules into vibrational states which is what has to happen to matter to raise its temperature, to heat it up.

    “Overview of Sunlight and Skin Damage

    The skin shields the rest of the body from the sun’s rays.

    Ultraviolet Light: Ultraviolet (UV) light, although invisible to the human eye, is the component of sunlight that has the most effect on skin. UV light is classified into three types, ultraviolet A (UVA), ultraviolet B (UVB), and ultraviolet C (UVC), depending on its wavelength.

    UV light in small amounts is beneficial because it helps the body produce vitamin D. However, larger amounts of UV light damage deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA—the body’s genetic material) and alter the amounts and kinds of chemicals that the skin cells make. These changes are responsible for the damaging effects of UV light, including burning, premature skin aging, wrinkling, and skin cancer. Although UVA penetrates deeper into the skin, UVB is responsible for more of the damaging effects of UV light. http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/skin_disorders/sunlight_and_skin_damage/overview_of_sunlight_and_skin_damage.html

    UV doesn’t penetrate further than the first layer of skin, the epidermis. Thermal infrared penetrates much deeper and heats us up from the inside because we are mainly water, and water, “absorbs so strongly in this range”.

    It’s the thermal energy from the Sun which heats us up, which heats up land and oceans. This has been removed from the energy budget. This missing heat is a travesty..

  460. Myrrh

    You keep stating that visible light affects only the electrons in a molecule and does not impart vibrational energy. If you were shown that this statement is incorrect would it change your mind?

    Any spectroscopist who has looked at the vibrational fine structure of an electronic transition knows that you cannot have an electronic transition without an associated vibrational transition.Look up the Franck-Condon effect.

    Likewise, if you are interested, and vibrational transition has associated rotational structure i.e. microwave level energy changes.
    Look it up.

  461. ferd berple says:
    October 22, 2011 at 12:34 pm
    For example: Wikipedia says the “greenhouse effect” in real greenhouses is due mainly to convection,
    Straw man, as the Earth is not a ‘real’ greenhouse with walls and ceiling. But the atmosphere is actually heated from below, mostly by convection from the heated surface.

    Myrrh says:
    October 22, 2011 at 12:17 pm
    that thermal infrared (Heat), the real heat energy we feel as heat direct from the Sun, doesn’t play any part in directly heating land and oceans.
    Nobody is saying that [except you just now]. All light of any wavelength that gets to the surface play a part in heating it.

  462. Myrrh says:
    October 22, 2011 at 12:05 pm
    How does visible light heat the molecules of water of Earth’s oceans?
    Visible light penetrates rather deep into the oceans, of the order of 100 meters, before finally being absorbed. As it is absorbed, it will heat the water. Mostly by exciting vibrations of the water molecules, not exciting the electrons. There is no mystery here, just well-known physics.

  463. Chuck Weise you write to Myrrh “I’m sure you would agree that infrared radiation at any wavelength is opaque to glass”. Having proved to myself only a few posts before yours, that glass is not opaque to near IR ie my Tv IR remote controls my TV perfectly OK through glass up to the the same distances as it does without glass in front of it, I don’t believe Myrrh has to agree.

    As for Far IR, I do believe glass does attenuate It as when I shut the door of my log burner which has a glass panel it is easy to detect the drop in radiant heat. But I say attenuate because the glass panel builds up with soot over time and when cleaned (a major chore) the increase in radiant heat is also obvious, so far IR must also pass through glass albeit attenuated

    I’m getting rather suspicious of modern science assumptions of what is correct without physical proof. In fact I would rather a scientist observe a phenomenon and then investigate why it occurs rather than the other way round.

  464. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    October 22, 2011 at 1:16 pm
    Myrrh

    You keep stating that visible light affects only the electrons in a molecule and does not impart vibrational energy. If you were shown that this statement is incorrect would it change your mind?

    Any spectroscopist who has looked at the vibrational fine structure of an electronic transition knows that you cannot have an electronic transition without an associated vibrational transition.Look up the Franck-Condon effect.

    Likewise, if you are interested, and vibrational transition has associated rotational structure i.e. microwave level energy changes.
    Look it up.

    Yeah, yeah, always the ‘go look it up’, SHOW me proof that Visible light heats water. Water is transparent medium to visible light, visible light doesn’t even get to play with the electrons.

    And if what you claim is true, how much hotter are the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in our atmosphere whose electrons absorb visible light and reflect/scatter it all over the sky?? It’s not in the energy budget.

    …………

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 22, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    Myrrh says:
    October 22, 2011 at 12:17 pm
    that thermal infrared (Heat), the real heat energy we feel as heat direct from the Sun, doesn’t play any part in directly heating land and oceans.

    Nobody is saying that [except you just now]. All light of any wavelength that gets to the surface play a part in heating it.

    Why do you always come out with this kind of bs? The only reason I’m responding is that it’s the repetition of this garbage by those like you which is dumbing down real science education. You have a lot to answer for being party to this by trying to confuse readers here. That’s exactly the claim.

    The claim is that UV/Visible/NrIR heat land and oceans and thermal infrared is excluded. Shortwave in, longwave out. That’s the claim. That’s exactly as in the KT97 and of its ilk. That is the AGW Science Fiction Meme of its Science Fiction Energy Budget, that Light energies are thermal, heating the Earth’s land and oceans. That’s exactly how it is described in the ‘greenhouse cartoon’, that thermal doesn’t get through and it is the shortwaves that heat the ground which then radiates out thermal. You know the arguments.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 22, 2011 at 1:41 pm
    Myrrh says:
    October 22, 2011 at 12:05 pm
    How does visible light heat the molecules of water of Earth’s oceans?

    Visible light penetrates rather deep into the oceans, of the order of 100 meters, before finally being absorbed. As it is absorbed, it will heat the water. Mostly by exciting vibrations of the water molecules, not exciting the electrons. There is no mystery here, just well-known physics.

    Visible light doesn’t even get to play with the electrons of the molecules of water. It is not powerful enough to excite the whole molecule which is what it takes to heat up water. Water is a transparent medium for Visible light, it is transmitted through. It does not heat water because it cannot do what it takes to heat water.

    And “just well-known physics” is only just well known in the science fiction physics created by corrupting real physics to support the dumbing down of the population the better to accept the garbage in of all AGW arguments.

    Show me, actually go and fetch a real world text book in applied science which shows the detail of how visible light from the Sun heats water and the applications of this in real life. You can’t. It doesn’t exist. Your continual detractions to avoid admitting this and deliberately generating confusion about claims is not very impressive, but that’s all you can do to support the garbage in of AGW.

    Show me, actually go and fetch a real world physics text book in applied science which shows the detail of how visible light from the Sun heats water and the applications of this in real life. You can’t. It doesn’t exist.

    Prove it exists, prove to all of us here that it exists, go fetch it.

  465. zac says:
    October 22, 2011 at 2:16 pm
    Chuck Weise you write to Myrrh “I’m sure you would agree that infrared radiation at any wavelength is opaque to glass”. Having proved to myself only a few posts before yours, that glass is not opaque to near IR ie my Tv IR remote controls my TV perfectly OK through glass up to the the same distances as it does without glass in front of it, I don’t believe Myrrh has to agree. etc.

    Thank you zac.

    Have you tried bouncing the near ir remote around the room, ceilings, walls, to change channels? Discovered by accident when I leaned on it and it was pointing away from the tv and changed the channel.

  466. This whole thing reminds me (in its futility) of a discussion I once had (on another board) with one of those people who was so convinced that the GHE violates the laws of thermodynamics that he claimed that if photons emitted by a cooler object should happen to come across a warmer object in their travels, then they would just vanish rather than be absorbed.

    Myrrh, I said “look it up” because that’s where you find the proof. Unless, that is, you believe that every textbook on physics in general or spectroscopy in particular has been doctored as part of a conspiracy.

  467. Myrrh says:
    October 22, 2011 at 2:33 pm
    The claim is that UV/Visible/NrIR heat land and oceans and thermal infrared is excluded.
    That is not the claim. That is your distortion of it.

    Water is a transparent medium for Visible light, it is transmitted through.
    If this were true then the ocean bottom should be bathed in visible sunlight. But is it pitch dark down there. Light penetrates only about 100 meter into the ocean and it thus absorbed and thus heats the water [or do you think the energy just disappears?]

  468. Myrrh: So if an object got really hot, like 100,000K, the object would have a peak emission at .029 um, or far into the UV spectrum. This means there would also be a considerable amount visible light emitted by such an object as well as infrared radiation, such as from a star. But between .8 and 80 microns ( the infrared spectrum ), the emission is 1.58 x 10 E9 Wm-2, which means if you had a black body nearby to absorb just that part of the electromagnetic radiation, its temperature would only reach 12,900 K or approximately 13% of the emitting star’s temperature right next to it, separated by just a few feet in space.

    Of course, such an assumption is absurd, and everyone knows the temperature of the black body would have to be much higher and a lot closer to the emitting body’s temperature, and that is precisely due to the fact that radiation absorbed at the visible and UV wavelengths would cause additionall large spikes in the temperature of such an object. There is no experiment that you could conduct that would prove that a temperature rise in any object by shining visible light on it is only owing to the absorption of infrared radiation by that light unless it had an albedo of 1, and I challenge you to show everyone such a condition. There are countless examples where considering all wavelengths of an emitter involved, that the temperature of such an object absorbing them would experience a temperature rise in close agreement with the established radiation laws as long as the specific heat and emissivity of the absorbing property are known.

    Your claims are baseless in light of experimental evidence and established radiation laws.

  469. Myrrh says:
    October 22, 2011 at 2:33 pm
    SHOW me proof that Visible light heats water.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#Astronomy_division_scheme:

    “Infrared radiation is popularly known as “heat radiation”, but light and electromagnetic waves of any frequency will heat surfaces that absorb them. Infrared light from the Sun only accounts for 49%[12] of the heating of the Earth, with the rest being caused by visible light that is absorbed then re-radiated at longer wavelengths. ”
    [12]: http://www.azsolarcenter.com/design/documents/passive.DOC

    Here is how a solar cooker works [applied science] http://solarcooking.org/sbcdes.htm
    Visible light easily passes through the glass and is absorbed and reflected by materials within the enclosed space.” Any time something is absorbed by a material, the material is heated [as the energy cannot just disappear]

    More applied science: http://www.pasolar.ncat.org/lesson03.php
    “Visible light (insolation) is the main energy source collected by systems that provide space heat, water heat, and electricity for homes.”

    I think you were put down enough on this old thread, but apparently it was quite futile: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/15/radiating-the-ocean/

  470. @Byz “You have a great country and you were so fortunate to have Franklin D Roosevelt in the 1930′s as he guided the ship through troubled waters and the rise of the US after the WWII to stand up to Soviet aggression is a testament to how great a president he was,”

    FDR a great President? Google “National Industrial Recovery Act” and “National Recovery Administration”.
    Those were his attempt to steer the country hard left by nationalizing all the big industries. When the Supreme Court declared it all unconstitutional, he embarked on a plan of doing it piecemeal through the creation of a lot of new government agencies we didn’t need.
    He also sat on his tukus while Germany, Japan and Italy ran roughshod over the eastern hemisphere, instead of really pushing Congress to get with it and do something other than a bit of supplies to the UK. At least he did realize there was a real threat, but a more Bush Jr. leadership style would’ve had us Over There a heck of a lot sooner instead of waiting for the situation to get so bad.

  471. Leif Svalgaard October 22, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Smoking Frog says:
    October 22, 2011 at 8:13 am
    Leif – It’s too bad somebody can’t think up a very simple proof – some easily arranged experiment or common phenomenon – no theory required.

    Simple theory works well here. Of the 1360 W/m2 hitting the Earth, 600 W/m2 is in the infrared [above 800 nm]. If we assume that only that heats the Earth, then we can calculate what temperature the Earth would have. It goes like this: The temperature without Greenhouse Effect is [S*(1-A)/4/5.671E-8]^(1/4) which for S=1360 and Albedo A=0.3 comes to 255K. The observed temperature is 288K, so the difference 33K is due to GHG [mostly H2O and CO2]. With Myrrh’s wrong physics [S=600] one gets 207K, for a Greenhouse Effect of 81K, so Myrrh becomes a very strong proponent of excessive Greenhouse effects.

    Yes, but that’s not as simple as what I was looking for. I’d like something so simple that Myrrh would be stymied by its obviousness and would be seen as being stymied by its obviousness, as opposed to being seen as not understanding.

  472. Henry@Leif

    Leif,

    this is from your quote:
    with the rest being caused by visible light that is absorbed then re-radiated at longer wavelengths

    henry@Leif
    The question was how UV or visible light heats the water. I doubt also that uv or visible light heats water, as it is not consistent with the observations.I think it is simply re-radiated. I have left many times (forgot) the cuvet with my watery samples in the spectrophotometer with my wavelength set at a specific wavelength (in the UV or in the visible range) and the machine on, and when I came back nothing in the sample had boiled over or evaporated. I have to conclude from this that it (the beam with light of that wavelength) is simply re-radiated. Maybe some of that is re-radiated at longer wavelengths, *heat?)but even that can only happen up to a certain saturation point – remember that the substance is finite whereas the light source is not finite.

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011

    If your argument is that this absorption (and subsequent conversion to heat) only happens at great depth, how would you prove that? What happens with the light before you reach the 100 meters?

  473. Chuck Wiese says:
    October 22, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    Your claims are baseless in light of experimental evidence and established radiation laws.

    More irrelevant gobblegook avoiding my point.

    I am giving you established physical processes of how visible light doesn’t get absorbed by water molecules, is not powerful enough to move the molecules into vibrational states which is what heats water, isn’t even powerful enough to get in to play with the electrons of the molecules of water as visible is able to do with the molecules of oxygen and nitrogen in our atmosphere.

    I have asked for proof that visible light heats water, how exactly it does this as per the claim in the junk energy energy budget, because physically it cannot and does not. You cannot provide the actual information I’m asking for because it doesn’t exist. I’m expecting a detailed description from you of the actual physical process. Why aren’t you providing it?

    Are you having problems with the meanings of ‘properties and processes’?

    ……………
    ……………

    Leif – why don’t for once answer my the question I have actually asked? I am still waiting for proof of the claim that visible light creates heat when it is absorbed by earth and water which is the claim of the junk energy budget. I have asked you to provide specific real world details from real world physics with real world examples to prove this claim, you as usual do not and as usual come back with links to more of the same crap information without any proof about which I’m complaining doesn’t exist to deflect from your inability to answer my direct requirements and, as usual, deflecting from your ignorance of method and inability to give me a straight answer by yet more ad homs. You’re, and I do not say this lightly but after considerable experience of this typical behaviour from you in previous discussions on the science, not fit for purpose for all your claims to being a scientist. For example:

    http://www.azsolarcenter.org/images/docs/passive/passive.doc

    “Sunlight, in the form of short wave solar radiation, exhibits a transformation from solar energy to heat energy when impacting a material (absorption).”

    Not true. Photosynthesis is not transformation to heat, it is chemical energy conversion to sugars, not thermal conversion to heat. Solar short wave cannot move molecules into vibrational states which is the physical requirement for heating matter.

    Your link to solar cooking repeats the same nonsense that light heats matter, no it can’t, it’s the thermal infrared heat energy from the Sun which cooks the dinner. Your link to collecting solar power – again with the science fiction bull, as I gave the difference earlier – visible light is not able to heat water through panel collection, this is collecting thermal infrared, photo-voltaic cells are able to convert the puny visible into electricity which can then heat water. That’s the real difference. Pages such as you’ve given are garbled nonsense, the same garbled science you give. No more links except as source reference. You explain to us here exactly how shortwave Visible light heats water on a molecular/atomic/electron basis, the “matter” in the quote, which you say happens because water absorbs visible light.

    Until you, and the others here pushing this junk, do that exactly as I’ve requested, then your claims for the energy budget are based on nothing but your imaginations creating impossible worlds, science fiction. Some may be convinced that your garbled avoidance has scientific merit, but I can see through the bull.

    And as for your link to that discussion, it’s a picture of thermal longwave radiation heating the earth and oceans… :) For any interested in the actual discussion,

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/15/radiating-the-ocean/

    I requested actual real world applied science textbooks confirming your claim. These pages do not constitute text books. Fetch the real physics explanations from real physics text books in the real world actually teaching how visible light heats water on a molecular scale or admit you can’t because none such exists.

    I have given real physical explanations on an electon/atom/molecule level of why visible light from the Sun cannot do this, cannot heat matter.

    You cannot prove this real world physics on the properties and processes of visible light wrong. All you can do is continue bluffing.

    Additionally, your generic claim in the junk energy budget is that air is a transparent medium for shortwave from the Sun, this is not true. The electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen absorb visible light before reflecting it back out, therefore it is not transparent. So, how much does this heat the atmosphere? Why isn’t the figure for this in the junk energy budget claim?

  474. zac says:
    October 22, 2011 at 2:55 pm
    Yes I have tried bouncing the near IR around and it will reflect off the walls and control the TV.That is why I placed a towel over everything to eliminate this. Have you read my post and what I found?

    Sorry, I don’t know how I missed associating that with your previous post. It’s likely that your mention of it in your post is what later triggered my memory of my experience, perhaps my mind giving me a nudge because I didn’t reply to your question there..

    That bright dot in the middle of the card must be an area of boh visible light and invisible near IR that has fallen on the surface of the lens . Wrong time of the year where I am but what causes the card to scorch, intense IR + intense visible light or just intense IR?

    I would think intense IR. Think of a piece of paper put close to an open fire but not touching the source, it will be affected by the thermal ir just as a pot suspended over the fire is affected and heated up. I’ve just lit a candle and held a piece of paper near it.. I’m not sure to what extent even a coherent source of visible could have that effect as in a laser, how intense it would need to be, but the processes of how the various wavelengths affect matter are different and from what I’ve read so far, I think even visible intensified required some input from ir to have a ‘burning’ effect, lasers damage eyes from a photochemical action, not from a thermal. Even intense UV outdoors for example, can be stopped by a shirt. How is that intensified through a magnifying glass? I think, roughly, of artificial intensity much as the difference between a hand drill and an electric when it comes to lasers cutting through metal.., but intensification is still limited to the properties a wave has. How ‘intense’ can an x-ray be made to travel through bone? Can it ever? Anyway, this page on lasers for dummies says:

    http://www.wickedlasers.com/laser-tech/dummies.html
    “In general, laser radiation is not in itself harmful, and behaves much like ordinary light in its interaction with the body.”

    Since that is benign, it is reflective rather than absorptive, or we’d cast no shadows.., I should think its magnification through a glass plays no part in heating the paper any more than it does without magnification, it is brightness which is being intensified, not thermal energy. Perhaps all one gets is a clearer view of the paper burning..

  475. Smoking Frog says:
    October 23, 2011 at 3:15 am
    Leif Svalgaard October 22, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Smoking Frog says:
    October 22, 2011 at 8:13 am

    Yes, but that’s not as simple as what I was looking for. I’d like something so simple that Myrrh would be stymied by its obviousness and would be seen as being stymied by its obviousness, as opposed to being seen as not understanding.

    Keep looking. I’m looking for proof that visible light is capable of heating water, real world science text book proof and explanation of how this happens on a molecular level.

  476. Myrrh.
    The candle experiment is quite interesting. I can approach the side of the flame with a peice of paper and get quite close before it scorches and eventualy bursts into , I assume that is heat transmission by Far IR. When I go from directly above I can’t get very close at all before the paper bursts into flames and I will assume that is heat transmission by Far IR and convection of the air in the room. The same goes for my hand, I can get very close to the side of the flame before it becomes uncomfortable although I can sense the heat from a couple of inches away but from above the flame, six inches above it iis about the limit I can tolerate.

    So it would seem to me that the convection of air in the room transmits much more heat away from the flame than far IR alone.

  477. You have been told how it happens at a molecular level Myrrh, you just cannot be bothered looking it up. Do you have access to proper text books? For example “Physical Chemistry:A Molecular Approach” by McQuarrie and Simon (particularly chapter 13), or “Fundamentals of Molecular Spectroscopy”, by Banwell, or “Physical Chemistry” by Atkins?

    You cannot in a molecule have an electronic transition without a simultaneous vibrational one.

  478. Myrrh says:
    October 23, 2011 at 4:23 am
    I am still waiting for proof of the claim that visible light creates heat when it is absorbed by earth and water
    If light is absorbed it means that the energy in the light is transferred to the absorbing material. This heats the material. As simple as that.

  479. Quite often when light is absorbed it produces a chemical reaction. Museums and art galleries go to great lengths as to what light their exhibits are exposed to, red cars become pink, photographs fade, the sense of sight depends on a photo chemical reaction, photosynthesis is the ultimate solar power but none of these produce heat.

  480. ****
    Myrrh says:
    October 23, 2011 at 4:23 am
    I am still waiting for proof of the claim that visible light creates heat when it is absorbed by earth and water
    ****

    Uh…..what exactly do you think industrial metal-cutting lasers are doing? Hint: a laser emits coherent visible light, not IR.

  481. Myrrh says:
    October 23, 2011 at 4:23 am
    I am still waiting for proof of the claim that visible light creates heat when it is absorbed by earth and water

    The absorption by water at the molecular level is very complicated. A technical description can be found here:
    From http://www.leif.org/EOS/Absorption-Water.pdf page 55:
    “As in the case of discrete H2O molecules, these bands are due to vibrational-rotational harmonic and combination transitions from the ground state, specified earlier in Figure 2.3a, but they are wider and usually shifted in the direction of the longer wavelengths. Again, as in the case of such molecules, some of these broadened bands lie in the visible range of the spectrum, although there are more of them in the VIS range in the case of liquid water than of water vapor. These include two discernible, although quite weak bands at c. 606 nm and c. 515 nm (See Table 2.9, items 17 and 18). Notice also, that as in the case of the fundamental absorption bands, these harmonic and combination absorption bands of liquid water are generally more intense than those of water vapor.”

    Basically, the energy goes into symmetric and asymmetric stretching of the hydrogen bonds. The absorption is weak [so water is almost transparent at visual wave lengths] but if the path length is long enough [hundreds of meters] the visible light will be absorbed and its energy transferred to the water molecules, heating the water.

  482. Myrrh says:
    October 23, 2011 at 4:41 am

    Go stand in front of a window, with your bowl of water, with the sun shining in.

  483. Myrrh says:
    October 23, 2011 at 4:41 am
    I’m looking for proof that visible light is capable of heating water, real world science text book proof and explanation of how this happens on a molecular level.
    Here it is:

    My post above is from this real world science text bvook.

  484. This argument reminds me of a discussion I once foolishly became engaged in concerning gravity. A friend stated he was convinced (by something he read) that gravity was a push NOT a pull. The gravity we feel exerted on the surface of the earth was merely the delta G between the sun and the earth. ie The sun’s gravity pushes objects on to the surface of the earth and the earth’s gravity pushes objects away from the surface of the earth. The net force is the weight of objects. No matter how I tried, I was unable to completely falsify the premise.

    Another example is the growing earth video of Neal Adams:

    I think the reason, some of these are difficult to falsify, is that the science itself is still “fuzzy” or at least, my own understanding remains fuzzy. It may require, some of these type of conundrums, to humble ourselves, occasionally. Again, experimentation seems to be the only correct path. GK

  485. G. Karst says:
    October 23, 2011 at 8:59 am
    The sun’s gravity pushes objects on to the surface of the earth and the earth’s gravity pushes objects away from the surface of the earth. The net force is the weight of objects. No matter how I tried, I was unable to completely falsify the premise.
    The tides raised by the Sun…

  486. Myrrh says:
    October 22, 2011 at 1:13 pm
    Visible does not move molecules into vibrational states which is what has to happen to matter to raise its temperature, to heat it up.
    Yes it does. Visible light at 515 nm and at 606 nm [page 47 in the reference I gave you, item 17 and 18] have vibrational combination transitions (0,0,0) -> (a,0,b) where a+b=6 and 5, respectively.

  487. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 23, 2011 at 7:05 am
    Myrrh says:
    October 23, 2011 at 4:23 am
    I am still waiting for proof of the claim that visible light creates heat when it is absorbed by earth and water

    If light is absorbed it means that the energy in the light is transferred to the absorbing material. This heats the material. As simple as that.

    Water is a transparent medium to visible light, it does not absorb it.

    The atmosphere is not a transparent medium to visible light, the AGWSF energy budget claims it is, the electrons of nitrogen and oxygen absorb visible light, so, how hot does this make the sky? Why isn’t the figure in the energy budget?

    beng says:
    October 23, 2011 at 8:02 am
    ****
    Myrrh says:
    October 23, 2011 at 4:23 am
    I am still waiting for proof of the claim that visible light creates heat when it is absorbed by earth and water
    ****

    Uh…..what exactly do you think industrial metal-cutting lasers are doing? Hint: a laser emits coherent visible light, not IR.

    Show on a molecular scale exactly how visible light heats water, give me real worl textbook science and examples of real world application where visible light as from the Sun actually heats water, and not an artificially intensified source such as a laser, the Sun is not a laser. Unless you can prove using real physics that the AGWSF energy budget’s claim that visible light from the Sun heats land and oceans you should stop claiming it.

    rbateman says:
    October 23, 2011 at 8:56 am
    Myrrh says:
    October 23, 2011 at 4:41 am

    Go stand in front of a window, with your bowl of water, with the sun shining in.

    ? Since this argument is about whether or not visible light heats water, this experiment does nothing to prove it does.

    Here’s one for you. Run a bath of cold water, take its temperature. Shine a visible light source onto it which does not contain thermal infrared. Perhaps HenryP October 23, 2011 at 3:30 am will be able to guide you into how to do this, let it run for a few hours, take temperature of water. Let us know the result.

    I want you (generic) to explain in real physics detail on a molecular level how visible light heats water and this demonstrated in real physics.

  488. Have to say I had never ever questioned the accepted norm that visible sunlight warms the earth before. But it is now becoming more obvious to me that that can not be the full case.

    We are supposed to consider the planet as a black body and what the temperature should be on the surface of that black body without an atmosphere, or so most climate scientists tell us. But the bleeding obvious is that Earth is not a black body and those first photographs from space showed just what a wonderful brilliant colourful planet it is. It is a living planet and not a dead black body.

    Sunlight falling on the planet is gobbled up by plankton in the oceans and vegetation on land to produce chemical reactions. To state it is all turned into heat is just totally ridiculous.

    Black body my A***.

  489. Myrrh says:
    October 23, 2011 at 11:09 am
    Water is a transparent medium to visible light, it does not absorb it.
    I have given you several pointers that show that Water is not transparent, but absorbs visible light, e.g. at 515 nm and at 606 nm.

    Show on a molecular scale exactly how visible light heats water, give me real worl textbook science and examples of real world application where visible light as from the Sun actually heats water
    Again, I have already shown you that textbook and those applications.

    Here’s one for you. Run a bath of cold water, take its temperature. Shine a visible light source onto it which does not contain thermal infrared. Perhaps HenryP October 23, 2011 at 3:30 am will be able to guide you into how to do this, let it run for a few hours, take temperature of water. Let us know the result.
    If that bath is 100 meters deep or more [as the oceans] you’ll find that its temperature increases just as in real world.

    I want you (generic) to explain in real physics detail on a molecular level how visible light heats water and this demonstrated in real physics.
    I gave you a reference already.

  490. zac says:
    October 23, 2011 at 11:19 am
    It is a living planet and not a dead black body.
    Black bodies are not necessarily black. The Sun is very nearly a black body. The operational definition of a black body is this: take a closed box. Heat the box to a high temperature. Make a very small hole in the wall and watch the radiation coming out of the hole. That hole is a black body.

  491. Still have not sussed the quote stuff. But just to reply in a crude way, that imho ignoring the fact that planet (mearly typed plant) Earth is covered with living matter that feeds off visible light without generating heat is a massive mistake.

  492. Strawmen all over the place.

    Climate science does not treat the earth as a black body. (and as an aside “black bodies” are not black! they have a color which depends on their temperature)

    The atmosphere does absorb some visible light (just not very much)

    There is no substance (made of normal matter i.e. leave ‘dark matter’ out of it) anywhere in the universe which is 100% transparent – if it is made of protons and electrons it absorbs electromagnetic radiation. Sometimes the absorption is very weak and it requires a very long path length before it is all gone, but it is absorbed, at all wavelengths, always. And of course it is eventually re-emitted, at different wavelengths, because as well as all matter absorbing radiation, it also all emits radiation, provided it is at a temperature above absolute zero (which it is of course as it has just absorbed energy)

    If it is absorbing light, at any wavelength, it is heating, because the conservation of energy requires it.

    Myrrh, you have already been told how water absorbs visible light, several times. Have you actually looked in a text book? A real text book, not some internet page full of hand waving approximate ideas.

  493. zac says:
    October 23, 2011 at 12:20 pm
    living matter that feeds off visible light without generating heat is a massive mistake.
    The living matter take up a VERY small part of the energy falling on the Earth, so have little impact on the energy budget.

  494. leif says
    Here’s one for you. Run a bath of cold water, take its temperature. Shine a visible light source onto it which does not contain thermal infrared. Perhaps HenryP October 23, 2011 at 3:30 am will be able to guide you into how to do this, let it run for a few hours, take temperature of water. Let us know the result.

    Henry@leif
    I doubt if you will be able to see or measure any change in temps.

    I have thought about it to settle the matter.
    First of all, @beng, I think laser beams are close to the wavelengths of micro waves, but to be able to actually see the beam they might overlay or add some visible stream of light (red or green) so you can see where the beam is.

    Now, when we think about radiation 0-100um coming at us, it seems to me there are generally 3 possibilities.

    1) it passes through the substance, case in point: IR light through N2/O2
    2) it does not pass through either wholly or partially and is deflected (back radiated) at the same wavelengths ( where we find absorption in the spectrum): case in point:visible light through water, or water vapor. (remember when you need sunglasses most is when humidity is high)
    3) it does not pass through either wholly or partially and is deflected (back radiated) at a higher wavelength: case in point X-rays during body search that shows us the bones and metal in the visible range.

    Obviously if there is a change of wavelength, some energy in the form of heat will be left inside the substance (warming up).

  495. Zac,
    When plants absorb light it does produce heat – it is just that the heat is immediately used to promote chemical reactions – in particular to combine CO2 and H2O into sugars, since that reaction would not occur without an energy input (do you see glucose raining out of the sky?)

  496. HenryP

    I have thought about it to settle the matter.
    First of all, @beng, I think laser beams are close to the wavelengths of micro waves, but to be able to actually see the beam they might overlay or add some visible stream of light (red or green) so you can see where the beam is.”

    Henry, you can have microwave lasers , infrared lasers, visible lasers, ultraviolet lasers, but they are all essentially monochromatic i.e one wavelength. A laser is what-you-see-is-what-get.

    “3) it does not pass through either wholly or partially and is deflected (back radiated) at a higher wavelength: case in point X-rays during body search that shows us the bones and metal in the visible range.”

    No, no – the visible image is produced by the detector, the X rays do not wavelength, they change amplitude i.e some are absorbed. And visible has a much greater wavelength than Xrays (you are confusing wavelength with frequency)

    “2) it does not pass through either wholly or partially and is deflected (back radiated) at the same wavelengths ( where we find absorption in the spectrum): case in point:visible light through water, or water vapor. (remember when you need sunglasses most is when humidity is high)”

    No, no again – water does not re-radiate in the visible – does it start glowing when you shine a light on it ? (I am not talking about refections from the surface)

    “1) it passes through the substance, case in point: IR light through N2/O2″

    This is the only one of your statements that is nearly correct – and even this is not quite true, as N2 and O2 have very weak absorption due to collision induced effects (when two N2 molecules bump into each other the result is not symmetric and can absorb IR)

  497. @Byz “You have a great country and you were so fortunate to have Franklin D Roosevelt in the 1930′s as he guided the ship through troubled waters and the rise of the US after the WWII to stand up to Soviet aggression is a testament to how great a president he was,”

    Galane says:
    October 23, 2011 at 12:39 am
    FDR a great President? Google “National Industrial Recovery Act” and “National Recovery Administration”.
    Those were his attempt to steer the country hard left by nationalizing all the big industries. When the Supreme Court declared it all unconstitutional, he embarked on a plan of doing it piecemeal through the creation of a lot of new government agencies we didn’t need.
    ___________________

    Do not forget that FDR is the one who stole all the gold from US citizens and gave it to the banks to fritter away to foreigners.

    Congressman McFadden’s Speeches in 1934 on “Roosevelt’s gold raid” http://www.afn.org/~govern/mcfadden.html

    Is Ft Knox Empty of good delivery gold? “The Great American Disaster: How Much Gold Remains In Fort Knox?” http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/weber-c1.1.1.html

    WORSE he is the one that saddle us with the new definition of the “Commerce Clause” a definition that allows the Federal Government to interfere with every aspect of our lives.

    “After President Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court to dilute the influence of the uncooperative “nine old men,” a majority of the justices took to the most expansive definition of the commerce clause like a drunk to drink…..

    …. Enter Roscoe Filburn, an Ohio dairy and poultry farmer, who raised a small quantity of winter wheat — some to sell, some to feed his livestock, and some to consume…. the central government told Mr. Filburn that for the next year he would be limited to planting 11 acres of wheat and harvesting 20 bushels per acre. He harvested 12 acres over his allotment for consumption on his own property. When the government fined him, Mr. Filburn refused to pay.

    Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices unanimously ruled against the farmer. The government claimed that if Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it — and that affected interstate commerce. It also argued that if the price of wheat rose, which is what the government wanted, Mr. Filburn might be tempted to sell his surplus wheat in the interstate market, thwarting the government’s objective. The Supreme Court bought it.

    The Court’s opinion must be quoted to be believed:

    [The wheat] supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce.

    As Epstein commented, “Could anyone say with a straight face that the consumption of home-grown wheat is ‘commerce among the several states?’” For good measure, the Court justified the obvious sacrifice of Mr. Filburn’s freedom and interests to the unnamed farmers being protected:

    It is of the essence of regulation that it lays a restraining hand on the self-interest of the regulated and that advantages from the regulation commonly fall to others.

    After Wickard , everything is mere detail…..” http://www.fff.org/freedom/0895g.asp

    I curse the day that man was born. The USA would have been much better off if FDR had never become a president. Even his son-in-law states he was a puppet for the international bankers.

    “Franklin Delano ROOSEVELT My Exploited Father-in-Law excerpts from the book: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/New_World_Order/FDR_ExploitedFather-In-Law.html

    If you are interested in the politics behind CAGW reading the above excerpts is a good place to start.

  498. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 23, 2011 at 11:36 am
    Myrrh says:
    October 23, 2011 at 11:09 am
    Water is a transparent medium to visible light, it does not absorb it.

    I have given you several pointers that show that Water is not transparent, but absorbs visible light, e.g. at 515 nm and at 606 nm. Basically, the energy goes into symmetric and asymmetric stretching of the hydrogen bonds. The absorption is weak [so water is almost transparent at visual wave lengths] but if the path length is long enough [hundreds of meters] the visible light will be absorbed and its energy transferred to the water molecules, heating the water.

    I didn’t have time to reply to your first post on this earlier:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/#comment-775546

    Myrrh says:
    October 23, 2011 at 4:23 am
    I am still waiting for proof of the claim that visible light creates heat when it is absorbed by earth and water

    The absorption by water at the molecular level is very complicated.

    No it isn’t complicated, water is a transparent medium for visible light, it is transmitted through without being absorbed.

    A technical description can be found here:
    From http://www.leif.org/EOS/Absorption-Water.pdf page 55:
    “As in the case of discrete H2O molecules, these bands are due to vibrational-rotational harmonic and combination transitions from the ground state, specified earlier in Figure 2.3a, but they are wider and usually shifted in the direction of the longer wavelengths. Again, as in the case of such molecules, some of these broadened bands lie in the visible range of the spectrum, although there are more of them in the VIS range in the case of liquid water than of water vapor. These include two discernible, although quite weak bands at c. 606 nm and c. 515 nm (See Table 2.9, items 17 and 18). Notice also, that as in the case of the fundamental absorption bands, these harmonic and combination absorption bands of liquid water are generally more intense than those of water vapor.”

    First of all, I asked you for a textbook from real world physics which showed exactly on a molecular level how visible light heats water as per your claim.

    Again, you avoid this. You know exactly what I am asking you for, unless I have totally misjudged you and you’re in fact really really low iq with no ability to think straight let alone concentrate on this..

    You then give me a page which you have compiled, I’m not even going to go there and I’m sure that are at least some reading here who won’t be surprised that I’m not interested in more of your avoidance techniques, from a study which I cannot access to see context, and which anyway is not what I asked you for.

    Fetch what I have actually asked for. Or admit that no such real physical property of visible light exists in the real world that ‘water absorbs visible light and heats it’, only in the perverse garbled world of the AGWSF’s imagination as promoted by you here. Where internal coherence is chucked out for expediency in all attempts to fool the unwary.

    You don’t care how illogical you are in your explanations, the more confusion you create the better, so you have to distract to avoid having to deal with the inconsistency created by your explanations.

    How much does visible light heat the molecules of oxygen and nitrogen in our atmosphere? Go on, give us an answer since you claim absorption equals heating.

    I can’t take you seriously as a ‘scientist’, but you know that already, I think you’ve just joined in here because you’re bored or something.. I am however extremely disappointed that I had to conclude this.

    ===

    Show on a molecular scale exactly how visible light heats water, give me real world textbook science and examples of real world application where visible light as from the Sun actually heats water

    Again, I have already shown you that textbook and those applications.

    No you haven’t. You showed me something from a study which I have no way of knowing what they are actually talking about, no context.

    My request is perfectly clear. Surely you can tell the difference between a textbook and a book on a study?

    That water is a transparent medium for visible light is bog standard real world physics basics.

    It means that visible light is not able to get to play with the electrons of the molecules of water. It’s not complicated. A garbled passage with no context giving two points where this isn’t so, even if proved in context, is hardly the stuff to support the junk energy budget claims that all visible light heats water of the Earth and is the ‘thermal’ energy ‘because [the real heat from the Sun] direct thermal infrared has no part in heating the land and oceans’. [The claim is that shortwave energies heat land and oceans and no thermal infrared heats these, to make this clear if anyone's unsure, I'm only dealing with visible light and water as a test case].

    Here is an example of real world physics about visible light and water:

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/watabs.html

    “Transparency of Water in the Visible Range

    Water is strongly absorbing at most of the wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum, but it has a narrow window of transparency which includes the visible spectrum.”

    That’s from Georgia State University.

    That is bog standard, well-known and understood, tried and tested real world physics. Water is a transparent medium for visible light, which means it is transmitted through without being absorbed.

    You cannot show me a real textbook teaching your claim that water absorbs visible light and that means it heats it.

    Because it doesn’t. You know that. I know that. Hopefully, those reading here who didn’t know that, also now know that.

    AGWScience Fiction has corrupted general education in this, teaching the junk energy budget as if real physics. This is unconscionable. We, in the real world, can be grateful that there are still some departments in our universities teaching real physics about the world around us.

    It continues:

    The span of the absorption spectrum shown is from wavelengths on the order of a kilometer down to about the size of a proton, about 10-15 meters. It doesn’t absorb in the wavelength range of visible light, roughly 400-700 nm, because there is no physical mechanism which produces transitions in that region – it is too energetic for the vibrations of the water molecule and below the energies needed to cause electronic transitions.

    ..

    The absorption of electromagnetic radiation by water spans a wide range of physical phenomena, characteristic of the general interaction of radiation with matter. It absorbs strongly in the microwave region by excitation of molecular rotations. In the infrared it exhibits strong absorptions from vibrations of the water molecule. As you go above the visible through the UV toward x-rays, it successively absorbs by photoelectric effect, Compton scattering and finally pair production.

    I want you (generic) to explain in real textbook physics detail on a molecular level how visible light heats water and this demonstrated in real physics.

    I gave you a reference already.

    Anyone else want a go since Leif has failed to provide this?

    • Myrrh – I have followed your assertions with some interest. Your technique is similar to the child that asks ‘why?’ and then responds to each answer with ‘why?’. Another technique is that if someone provides contra evidence as requested, you repeat that visible light is not absorbed by water therefore they must be wrong (a circular argument).

      What you have successfully illustrated is how in science, it is difficult to get anything completely settled. And indeed there is a level at which nothing can be.

      But you have not demonstrated that visible light is not absorbed by sea water. Statements you cite that water is transparent to light do not explain in real textbook physics detail on a molecular level how visible light is not absorbed at all by sea water. I am no expert in this, but scientific and empirical evidence do seem to suggest otherwise. I suspect that the statements are correct at one level (sea water does not absorb much visible light), but incorrect at the next level (the absorption is not zero),

      I really do think that your basic assertion “Water is a transparent medium to visible light, it does not absorb it” has to be incorrect in the context of the oceans. Otherwise, the ocean top and/or bottom would be brighter.

      Now I am not authoritatively stating that you are absolutely wrong – science is full of surprises – but if you wanted to convince me of your case, you would have to produce very convincing concrete evidence, both theoretical and empirical, that sea water is 100% transparent to visible light.

      Having said all that, the obvious rider is ‘so what?’. The dialogue has all taken place in the context of CAGW, and if the CAGW conjecture is basically correct then there are other possible mechanisms for heat being transferred from the atmosphere to the oceans. However, the tropical troposphere seems to indicate that the CAGW conjecture is incorrect, just to give one example, in which case this topic becomes irrelevant here.

      It has been interesting, though..

  499. “I gave you a reference already.”
    “Anyone else want a go since Leif has failed to provide this?”

    Well I did as well – real standard science text books, but you are not interesting in reading up on the subject. So it’s pointless.

    However for the benefit of anyone else here is some more real science

    http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jones/es151/gallery/images/absorp_water.html

    which shows the absorbance of light of different wavelengths by liquid water. Note that at for visible light the absorbance coefficient is a million times smaller than for IR (and a billion times smaller than UV), but it is NEVER zero at any frequency. Down the right hand side of the graphs is the depth to which different wavelengths of light typically penetrate – this varies from only a few microns for parts of the IR, to a 100 meters or so in the visible.

    This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MODIS_ATM_solar_irradiance.jpg shows what is absorbed by the atmosphere before it gets to sea level.

    And I think that until Myrrh demonstrates that he is willing to read a textbook, then there is no point in going on.

  500. Myrrh says:
    October 23, 2011 at 4:37 pm
    You then give me a page which you have compiled, I’m not even going to go there
    The page I referred you to is chapter 2 of the textbook Here it is:

    I have extracted the chapter so you don’t have to pay $160 to read it.
    I’ll try to explain what modern, real, standard physics has to say about this. A water molecule consists of an oxygen atom with two hydrogen atoms sitting on ‘hydrogen bonds’ [like little springs sticking out from the oxygen atom]. The two springs form an angle of some 105 degrees. There are three main modes of vibrations: mode 1, where the hydrogen atoms vibrate in and out in unison ['symmetric vibration']; mode 2 where the bonds bend back and forth, changing the angle;and mode 3 where the hydrogen atoms vibrate in opposite directions [when one goes in, the other goes out - called 'asymmetric vibration']. Because of the dense packing in liquid water, mode 2 does not happen [there is not enough room], so in liquid water only mode 1 and 3 occur. As with any vibration, there is a fundamental frequency [which is activated by far infrared], but here are also overtones [or harmonics - this is what makes a note, like 'A', sound differently on a violin and a trumpet]. The overtones that combine mode 1 and 3 [combined to 6th and 5th harmonics] correspond to the visual frequencies of light of 511 nm [green] and 606 nm [yellow], so visual light can and does excite vibrations. Overtones are normally of much less amplitude [strength] than the fundamental vibrations, so the visual light absorption is up to million times smaller than that of far IR. That infrared is absorbed [and thus heats] in the first few millimeters of the water column, while it takes 100 meters or more of water to absorb [and be heated by] visual light. But the ocean is deep enough for that, so even visual light gets absorbed [otherwise the ocean floor would be bathed in light - which it is not] and thus heats the oceans.

    Now, in science we deal with effective explanations, that is: we only need to go to details that have effect at the level we are discussing. For absorption by water it is enough to note that visual light eventually gets absorbed and thus heats the oceans. It is not necessary [and usually a distraction] to go to the deeper level of molecular vibrations or [even deeper] quantum mechanics in order to understand what goes on. But now you know [if you read the above] at the molecular level what happens.

  501. Myrrh,

    Type the search term
    “light absorption by water molecules and inorganic substances in sea water”
    into Google.
    Find the link corresponding to Chapter 2 of Wozniak and Dera.
    Read Chapter 2 in its entirety.

    Don’t come back till you have.

  502. Mike Jonas says:
    October 23, 2011 at 7:29 pm
    Now I am not authoritatively stating that you are absolutely wrong – science is full of surprises
    This is not one of them. The absorption of visible light is well-understood. See my post upthread at October 23, 2011 at 7:00 pm

  503. “”””” Infrared light lies between the visible and microwave portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Infrared light has a range of wavelengths, just like visible light has wavelengths that range from red light to violet. “Near infrared” light is closest in wavelength to visible light and “far infrared” is closer to the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The longer, far infrared wavelengths are about the size of a pin head and the shorter, near infrared ones are the size of cells, or are microscopic “””””

    Well my heart felt sympathies go out to Leif, and the others who waged a stirling effort to try an teach some 4-H club level science, to Myrrh. Some children are just incapable of learning; and it is a waste of time trying to teach them, since there are agreat many kids who are just eager to learn, and much more deserving of one’s efforts; Myrrh simply isn’t worth trying to teach.
    So the above quoted citation is from Myrrh’s too often repeated NASA kids teaching article about the EM spectrum.

    I draw your attentions to the very first sentence; I only included, the rest to enable quick comparison to the link Myrrh gives.

    So: &